And you have very little clue what you are talking about.
I've SEEN what Tal's talking about - my father makes throwing knives, throwing axes, and javelins in his spare time.
He also fletches and points his own arrows - in period style.
And you 'Mr. Bob Reed' is not a scholar in the sense of the word. he has no documentation whatsoever - and completely overlooks the fact that armor itself changed because the weapons changed, and basically says it's because all of a sudden, the peasents on thier own side are trying to kill them.
also, he is discussing purely 14th -15th c., and a majority of it is in england - also, there are very rough records and printed words from this time - I should know - a close friend of mine dealt in medivael manuscripts. Chances are if a 'fully armored man (which a man probably wouldn't be, especially since we are just discussing breastplates) had never been killed by an arrow is almost impossible to prove. There is just too much information lost.
If you equate arrow from a regular bow with an arrow from a 150# english longbow, you are sorely mistaken. An english longbow of 67# hits nearly with the force of a basic crossbow bolt - while one is 133.7 ft/s vs a crossbow's 138.7 ft/sec. While one bolt is heavier, they are going nearly the same speed - you up the poundage of the bow, and the speed increases.
An arrow could easily puncture plate - just as a crossbow could. It depends on WHAT plate, and the deflection angle. The main switch from longbow to crossbow was NOT because of it's being a more damaging weapon, though it did become so in the later years - it was the learning curve. A longbow's learning curve is amazingly steep - unlike a crossbow, which you could teach someone to reliably shoot in a week. Gikk fucked around with this message on 04-09-2004 at 12:13 AM.
quote:Asking me about the quality of the metal used in my arrowheads, yes, it is modern. But considering I can use the same 35# bow to put an unheaded cedar shaft through two coffee cans..
Tal At Work had this to say about pies:
Now then.Not to bash on what the History channel says, but iron aint soft. [quote] in comparison to steel it is
quote:that arguement is moot. Enough pressure can send a blade of grass through a pine board, and you're going to try and say the materials make that huge a differance?
you are comparing apples to oranges, Quality plate was "proofed" by shooting an arrow at it and it not going through it.
quote:
yes I am because, the better the material (plate armour)the more force will be needed to penetrate.(arrow)
Ok, lets say they do. A modern steel arrowhead, pierces a sheet of modern steel.
quote:Its not like I was shooting at an antique, period steel breastplate..
again apples and oranges a sheet of moderne steel may be of higher basic quality per sec, but you have to ahve the right crafting of the plate, not to mention if its a flat sheet you get a better transfer of energy opposed to actual armour that had a slight curver to it in most places to attempt to deflect it
quote:One, it would be stupid, and two, modern steel will almost always beat period steel. With either modern materials, or period materials, the results would be very similar. Its not like the physics of archery have somehow magically changed since then.
likly you couldnt afford it, and if you had it you wouldnt risk it in the experiment, agian even if antique its not enough to say its an repesentive piece. for example a dodge neon is a car but then so is a porche 911
Speaking of Agincourt... That was a victory of strategy, not of a weapon
quote:. Yes, it was a shitload of English bowmen, against a bigger shitload of French Cavalry, but the victory was due more to Henry's tactics,
no it was more a victory of sheer luck and of economy, you see the king wanted to have a impressive army but didnt have the money, proffesional men at arms and the like were 2x-10x as expensive as the cheeper bowmen, thus the king filled his rnakes with the bowmen insteed.
quote:and the stupidity of the french than anything else.
sheer luck of topgraphy of the battle feild favored the english in a open feild that was flat he would have lost.
As for using the history channel for a source.. well, I've seen them show one point, with an arrow being deflected off armor. And On another show LATER THAT DAY, they showed how arrows and crossbow bolts penetrated armor easily.
quote:The show on Deflecting arrows, was not about archery, but about armor. And Armor was designed to lessen the likelyhood of getting hurt. Thats the point of it. Armor was designed to be at odd angles to the traditional means of attack. the face of the helm was rarely flat, as that did not deflect an oncoming shot at all. Aiming for the joints, and openings in armor is possible, of course, but only at close range. Most Archery of that day, was done in masses. At Agincourt, one flight of arrows from either of the flanks, would contain upwards of 2500 arrows, all being generally aimed at the same group of men. With 2500 arrows coming down on your head, the chances of you getting fucked up raise greatly. And usually, if the infantry and cavalry closed to melee range with an archer, the archer either fled or dropped his bow, and grabbed his sword/axe/poleaxe, whatever, and proceeded to fight.
this is true, but this is a better programe than most as it was made by the english not the crappy american episodes
A short answer..
Potential Energy becomes Kinetic Energy
Kinetic Energy is multiplied by the force of acceleration
Acceleration is increased by gravity on the far side of the arc of flight
All the built up energy in the arrow, is focused on one point
That point strikes.
Somthor is wrong, because Armor is pierced.
Armor is pierced, because this is not a staged event for the History Channel.
quote:
provide a single instance of a fully armoured man being killed by archery penetrating his armour in a 15th century contex
code:[/QUOTE]E=MCpwned!
As for providing a single instance of a man being killed, by an arrow through his armor..
Unfortunately, I dont have a fresh corpse handy, who was wearing period armor, when I killed him with period arrows. but I will give you this.
If it didnt work, why did they use it? 
I'm glad I had my headphones on, or my brain would have oozed out my ear.
The best I can say is that I've watched a bunch of PBS programs (which, to their credit, don't attempt to make history interesting like the History Channel does), but those tend to prove things are possible rather than likely when it comes to armaments and the like.
Sooooo...Tal's right.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
you are comparing apples to oranges, Quality plate was "proofed" by shooting an arrow at it and it not going through it.
quote:
yes I am because, the better the material (plate armour)the more force will be needed to penetrate.(arrow)
... And what force is nessecary? Do you think crossbows could penetrate plate? (They certainly could.) Extremely high poundage english longbows and crossbows' arrows are traveling at roughly the same speed.
quote:
again apples and oranges a sheet of moderne steel may be of higher basic quality per sec, but you have to ahve the right crafting of the plate, not to mention if its a flat sheet you get a better transfer of energy opposed to actual armour that had a slight curver to it in most places to attempt to deflect it
You are ignoring things like - Platemail was handmade. There were flaws. Weak spots, spots where the deflection angle was not uniform - hell, give a breast plate a couple of dents. Now, you may say that an arrow hitting a dent is amazing rare, but in a shower of thousands of arrows, it's not - plus, if the armor had an inward dent, if could actually make arrow penetration MORE likely.
quote:
likly you couldnt afford it, and if you had it you wouldnt risk it in the experiment, agian even if antique its not enough to say its an repesentive piece. for example a dodge neon is a car but then so is a porche 911
Illogical statement. You are not tying to prove '1514 platmeail was unpiercable'. You are trying to prove ALL plate armour is unpiercable. Therefore, any plate armour Tal comes up with (whether he is finanically flush enough and moronically stupid enough to try and destroy an antique to please you not withstanding) is valid. As long as the arrows and plate are from the same time period, his argument applies. EDIT: For some reason, I type 'platemail' while my brain is thinking 'plate armor.
quote:
no it was more a victory of sheer luck and of economy, you see the king wanted to have a impressive army but didnt have the money, proffesional men at arms and the like were 2x-10x as expensive as the cheeper bowmen, thus the king filled his rnakes with the bowmen insteed.
I don't know if the history channel fed you that bullshit, but you are incorrect.
A bowman isn't cheap in any sense of the word - until you hit crossbow times. Longbowman took anywhere from 5 to 10 years of training to be the optimum bowman - swordwork took substancially less time.
You want to know a major reason Agincourt was won?
Mud.
Also: While the bowman OF THAT PERIOD has difficulty piercing breastplates and helmets, it is clearly stated and documented that they could easily pierce leg or arm plate.
quote:(from the same website)
St. Crispin's Day
Refer to the battlefield map to see what's going on.At dawn, both Henry and d'Albret laid out their forces near their respective camps. To start, the lines were a little over a mile apart. The plain between the armies was a gently rolling field, freshly plowed and planted, about 900 yards wide. It had been raining continuously for two weeks, and the field was a sea of mud.
The French had two very dense lines of armored foot soldiers with crossbowmen and bombards between. Mounted knights guarded the flanks and formed a reserve in the rear. d'Albret's plan was to use the bombards to cut the English lines into smaller sections that could be handled individually. Unfortunately, everybody (including d'Albret!) wanted to be in the front line. It got so dense that the bombards couldn't be fired, as they would hit more French than English. They actually were fired once, to no effect.
Henry laid out his forces in the traditional English fashion, with men-at-arms flanked by wedges of archers, protected by large pointed stakes. (Horses won't charge at big pointy things.) The archers at the ends of the lines were positioned forward from the rest of the troops to give covering fire along the main front. This is an excellent defensive position, but it gives very little scope for attack.
After the forces were arranged, they sat and stared at each other for four hours. The English had no desire to attack, and the French were presumably not pleased at the idea of wading through a mile of mud.
About 11 AM, as some of the French were sending their servants back to camp to bring lunch, Henry decided to force the issue. He ordered his troops to move the line forward, and to reset the positions within extreme longbow range from the French lines. He didn't have enough men-at-arms to form a reserve or to guard the camp. This was to have dramatic consequences later on.
As Henry had planned, the first volley of arrows goaded the French into attacking. The first attack was from the mounted knights on the flanks of the French position, intending to overrun the longbowmen protecting the English flanks. It was a disaster. While an English arrow would not normally penetrate a knight's plate armor, a horse cannot carry enough armor to be effective. Wounded horses threw their riders into the mud and trampled through the close-packed ranks of French foot soldiers. They also churned up the mud in front of the English positions, making things more difficult for future French attacks.
The main French attack was from the first line of men-at-arms. Unfortunately, everybody tried to push their way into the first line, including Constable d'Albret. As they marched toward the English, their line was squeezed together by the narrowing field, until they were so close together that they couldn't lift their arms to use their weapons. However, even with the mud and the crowding, the shock of the French men-at-arms hitting the English line was terrific, throwing the lines back for several yards.
It was, however, ineffectual. Despite some terrific fighting, the English line was never in any serious danger. While men-at-arms in plate armor are normally quite mobile, the combination of the mud and the crowding made them almost helpless. The English simply knocked them down, to drown or suffocate under fallen bodies.
The second line of men-at-arms followed the first. Now, however, there was the added complication that the English positions were blocked by a wall of bodies. The second line had no better luck against the arrows, mud, and English men-at-arms than the first.
After the collapse of the second line, the English common soldiers started in on the traditional battlefield activity of taking prisoners for rensom and stripping the armor and jewelry from the dead. However, the remaining French forces, both the survivors of the first two lines and the entire third line, plus the crossbowman, easily outnumbered the English. As the counts of Marle and Fauquembergues tried to rally the French for a third attack, Henry gave the order to kill the prisoners. This removed the risk of the prisoners turning on their captors and freed their guards for duty elsewhere.
At roughly the same time, a group of French knights cut through the woods and attacked the English camp. In Shakespeare, the raid on the camp was Henry's reason for ordering the prisoners killed; I suspect that it was a later justification. Remember, the murdered prisoners represented a very large amount of ransom money, which Henry needed very badly.
The attack of Marle and Fauquembergues was defeated with no particular effort. Their charge (in which both of them were killed) was the last offensive action that the French mounted.
quote:
sheer luck of topgraphy of the battle feild favored the english in a open feild that was flat he would have lost.
quote:
this is true, but this is a better programe than most as it was made by the english not the crappy american episodes
Just because something's English doesn't mean it's credible.
quote:
provide a single instance of a fully armoured man being killed by archery penetrating his armour in a 15th century contex
Like I said, documentation was scarce. However: Seems that everyone pretty much agrees arrows can pierce plate, though the distance nessecary varies. Gikk fucked around with this message on 04-09-2004 at 12:47 AM.
quote:
Somthor's account was hax0red to write:
you are comparing apples to oranges, Quality plate was "proofed" by shooting an arrow at it and it not going through it.
Bullshit, crafting practices always determines quality regardless of materials used, so it is apples to apples, and second. No armor was 'proofed' by its resistance to arrows as this was very cost negligent for the age, time, and campaigns that were waged, epecially concidering the rarity or armored fighters to begin with. Althoug one group, or one individual may have done such for one trademark item, it would be stupid and anti-productive to 'proof' quality in such a way.
quote:
yes I am because, the better the material (plate armour)the more force will be needed to penetrate.(arrow)
Again, stupid. Depending on the attack needed on this scale, such comparible items such as the iron in an arrow head, and that in a a breastplate will vary too little to be of any measureable value unless the tempering was just shitty to begin with. In such a comparison, material consistancy is moot.
quote:
likly you couldnt afford it, and if you had it you wouldnt risk it in the experiment, agian even if antique its not enough to say its an repesentive piece. for example a dodge neon is a car but then so is a porche 911
For one this comment is both derogatory, and inflamatory, also painting you more of an idiot as well as an agressor in a losing argument. This statement has no bearing on anything to begin with and is purely a personal assumption, with threatening tone. Shoulda shut up a while ago.
quote:
provide a single instance of a fully armoured man being killed by archery penetrating his armour in a 15th century contex
Find me an itemized list detailing any fallen in any war outside of just basic approximation of numbers in a 15th century context. I'm sure they went around inspecting every fallen soldier on the battlefield, and then made a special note of the fact that amidst sword wounds, or stabs, or other various injuries, it was an arrow piercing his armor that killed him.
quote:
Delphi Aegis's fortune cookie read:
Jeezus christ, my brain just hurts trying to read Somthor's reply. It took me five glances at it to figure out what fucking FORMAT it was in.I'm glad I had my headphones on, or my brain would have oozed out my ear.
Try making what he wrote into my nice, ordered reply.
Yeah.
My brain hurts. 
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Tal At Work was all like:
Did it feel good when UBB fucked you in the ass?As for providing a single instance of a man being killed, by an arrow through his armor..
Unfortunately, I dont have a fresh corpse handy, who was wearing period armor, when I killed him with period arrows. but I will give you this.
If it didnt work, why did they use it?
I'll assume you are asking why use the arrows. its simple they did work to the extent that plate was expensive and most people on the battle feild dindt wear complete sets of it, thus a skilled archer could simply aim at the majority of targets that were not so equiped, or when faced with one who was aim for the eye slits or any other part were the armour did not give complete coverage, lets not forget trying to issue any kind of comands or comunication with your visor closed was near impossible. Thus often they took their helms off or visors were up.
quote:
Somthor spewed forth this undeniable truth:
I'll assume you are asking why use the arrows. its simple they did work to the extent that plate was expensive and most people on the battle feild dindt wear complete sets of it, thus a skilled archer could simply aim at the majority of targets that were not so equiped, or when faced with one who was aim for the eye slits or any other part were the armour did not give complete coverage, lets not forget trying to issue any kind of comands or comunication with your visor closed was near impossible. Thus often they took their helms off or visors were up.
Also another dumb assumptions, the use of archers was used to its full efficiency in a volley. The concept of an archer on a soldier, one on one, is a hollywood fantasy. 
VERY rarely would single archers take on, or even bother to take time, taking out individual targets by aiming for eye slits in helmets and creases in armor.
Also, most orders were issued from the second to third ranks, following the rear, this is where rush attacks and general direction came from. Rarely were orders issued from the front ranks where a volley may strike. The only time either of your statements would apply would be under tactics of gorrila warfare, which was rare and a risky tactic at best, only used against small garrisons and scouting parties.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Somthor wrote:
I'll assume you are asking why use the arrows. its simple they did work to the extent that plate was expensive and most people on the battle feild dindt wear complete sets of it, thus a skilled archer could simply aim at the majority of targets that were not so equiped, or when faced with one who was aim for the eye slits or any other part were the armour did not give complete coverage, lets not forget trying to issue any kind of comands or comunication with your visor closed was near impossible. Thus often they took their helms off or visors were up.
DINGDINGDING... FALSE! THE MAN WINS A PRIZE.
Archers in a battle aim for no one - you've seen too many movies.
The effective way to use arrows is volleys.
And you need to go to pennsic sometime. You can be plenty loud in a helmet, and THAT'S why you have battle heralds. If thier helmet is off, it's more then likely they are not in the trenches, as it were.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris's fortune cookie read:
The concept of an archer on a soldier, one on one, is a hollywood fantasy.
Can't be any more fanciful than the reality in which Somthor resides.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris was naked while typing this:
Also another dumb assumptions, the use of archers was used to its full efficiency in a volley. The concept of an archer on a soldier, one on one, is a hollywood fantasy.Also, most orders were issued from the second to third ranks, following the rear, this is where rush attacks and general direction came from. Rarely were orders issued from the front ranks where a volley may strike. The only time either of your statements would apply would be under tactics of gorrila warfare, which was rare and a risky tactic at best, only used against small garrisons and scouting parties.
We're reading each other's minds, it seems like.
It's creepy.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Fizodeth said:
You're all ignoring the point of this thread. That metal has to be cold, and those breasts seem to be well-shaped.
I second this.
quote:
The only time either of your statements would apply would be under tactics of gorrila warfare
hehehe, gorilla warfare 
quote:
Lechium spewed forth this undeniable truth:
hehehe, gorilla warfare
You know what I meant.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when *Tal* said this:
I give you something I haventdoneshown you in a long time..A female without a penis.
Personally, I'm glad you made that say that you haven't "done" in a long time....although I gots some questions now for ya.... 
Oh Yeah..... When do I get an outfit like that??????
quote:
ACES! Another post by Gikk:
DINGDINGDING... FALSE! THE MAN WINS A PRIZE.Archers in a battle aim for no one - you've seen too many movies.
The effective way to use arrows is volleys.
And you need to go to pennsic sometime. You can be plenty loud in a helmet, and THAT'S why you have battle heralds. If thier helmet is off, it's more then likely they are not in the trenches, as it were.
I really wanna go back to Pennsic. I finally have (Aside from the shoes) a period-ish costume that I could wear.
Period shoes are hard to come by, and when they are, they're expensive, because they're usually "for show" boots and won't stand up to jack anyway.
quote:
This one time, at Delphi Aegis camp:
I really wanna go back to Pennsic. I finally have (Aside from the shoes) a period-ish costume that I could wear.Period shoes are hard to come by, and when they are, they're expensive, because they're usually "for show" boots and won't stand up to jack anyway.
You went? O.o
And it's called go to the leather store and make yourself some turnshoes, duder! and it's 14 days. In the sweltering heat. so I'd suggect linen. Cottonif you can't afford linen. otherwise, you'll DIE.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Gikk wrote:
You went? O.oAnd it's called go to the leather store and make yourself some turnshoes, duder! and it's 14 days. In the sweltering heat. so I'd suggect linen. Cottonif you can't afford linen. otherwise, you'll DIE.
Haha! It wouldn't be a period costume if you didn't die horribly from the heat, now would it? ;D It's a poet's shirt (For lack of a better name. It's poofy.), a leather tunic, heavy cotton pants (Which need to be fixed, they never fit right, and they ripped because they didn't fit), a belt, a beltpouch, and stuffs.
And I.. shit, can't remember when I went. But it was cool.
Edit: I forgot to mention the fleece full length hooded cloak with a caplet. Delphi Aegis fucked around with this message on 04-09-2004 at 01:08 AM.
It's warm, and fuzzy. Mostly warm.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Also another dumb assumptions, the use of archers was used to its full efficiency in a volley. The concept of an archer on a soldier, one on one, is a hollywood fantasy.Also, most orders were issued from the second to third ranks, following the rear, this is where rush attacks and general direction came from. Rarely were orders issued from the front ranks where a volley may strike. The only time either of your statements would apply would be under tactics of gorrila warfare, which was rare and a risky tactic at best, only used against small garrisons and scouting parties.
he asked for examples, i gave them. its true they did vollies its estimated that some 50k arrows rained down on the french in the first few minutes, against unarmoured persons it would be devestating,
anyway Tal hasnt won becuse he hasnt provided a example disproving my assertation that he is incorrect, where I have provided a person regarded in his forum as a expert on this topic who says he is essentaly also wrong.
you can always go to his forum and take it up with him, if you get that guy to say tal is correct then I'll conceed.
quote:
Somthor had this to say about Punky Brewster:
he asked for examples, i gave them. its true they did vollies its estimated that some 50k arrows rained down on the french in the first few minutes, against unarmoured persons it would be devestating,anyway Tal hasnt won becuse he hasnt provided a example disproving my assertation that he is incorrect, where I have provided a person regarded in his forum as a expert on this topic who says he is essentaly also wrong.
you can always go to his forum and take it up with him, if you get that guy to say tal is correct then I'll conceed.
Translation: I'm not wrong because I say I'm not wrong, and if you don't believe me, ask this guy that I don't even know *wink wink*, and he'll tell you that I'm not wrong omg pwned hahaha
My sister's boyfrind (who makes armor, fights, and smiths his own swords) saw the selfsame show you claim as proof.
Thier armor on that special was over 1/8" think cold rolled steel.
Do you think real plate armor was that thick? I have some swampland to sell you in florida, then....
Oh, and nice way to not reply to my post. Unless you are not un-ignoring me (like you usually do).
quote:
Nobody really understood why Delphi Aegis wrote:
Translation: I'm not wrong because I say I'm not wrong, and if you don't believe me, ask this guy that I don't even know *wink wink*, and he'll tell you that I'm not wrong omg pwned hahaha
how is it different than him sayin im wrong and thus i must be wrong? least I can point to a third party on a forum SOLELY devoted to the topic, to support my position.
oh wait its the He's somthor and must always be wrong argument
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Somthor said:
how is it different than him sayin im wrong and thus i must be wrong? least I can point to a third party on a forum SOLELY devoted to the topic, to support my position.oh wait its the He's somthor and must always be wrong argument
No, he's consistantly pizowned you (Along with Gikk later) with his OWN arguments.. which are backed up by the fact that Tal knows what the fuck he's talking about. He didn't just google shit and pull it out of his ass.
But whatever.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Gikk said this:
Thier armor on that special was over 1/8" think cold rolled steel.
That shit's heavy as fuck and just as unruly. I work with it the same types at work, and pity any fool to try and take a hammer to it.
It gives my tig welder hell.
It's not something people hear about.
Hell, last week brice was hardening his leather armour in the oven. (Too cold to do it anywhere else - it suddenly started snowing that day)
quote:
A sleep deprived Sean stammered:
That shit's heavy as fuck and just as unruly. I work with it the same types at work, and pity any fool to try and take a hammer to it.It gives my tig welder hell.
Plate armour could be anywhere from .5/16th of an inch to slightly under 1/8th of an inch, but the 1/8 of an inch is RARE.
Most armour from agincourt was Wrougth iron, and fairly soft.
quote:
Somthor enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
how is it different than him sayin im wrong and thus i must be wrong? least I can point to a third party on a forum SOLELY devoted to the topic, to support my position.oh wait its the He's somthor and must always be wrong argument
It's different because you are arguing out of your ass based on assumptions and of the boobtube's declaration of truth against someone who is solely devoted to the topic. On top of that your only other defence being someone who CLAIMS to be solely devoted to the topic yet has himself provided no real credentials aside from bookknoledge and his only claims on historical fact which he himself cannot fully back up and has left quite a few points up to interpritation and speculation. It was also only a THREAD on a message board, not an entire site dedicated to the topic. The site was on ancient arms in general, more specifically, SWORDS.
quote:
Delphi Aegis stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
No, he's consistantly pizowned you (Along with Gikk later) with his OWN arguments.. which are backed up by the fact that Tal knows what the fuck he's talking about. He didn't just google shit and pull it out of his ass.But whatever.
his arguments are flawed, he is comparing apples to oranges. I didnt just google it nor did I pull it out of my ass. I used to be quite the history buff, now I am not claiming to be a expert, I am mearly claiming that Im not wrong on this particular occasion.
As to Gikk she's on ignore, I make it a habit not to read her posts on the basis that she only responds to attack me, says nothing productive, or supported by any real facts other than whatever she is curently "me too'ing" from someone else who might actualy have a orginal thought.
since thats the case responding to her would only be feeding a troll, or result in accusations of me being the same.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about Cuba:
It's different because you are arguing out of your ass based on assumptions and of the boobtube's declaration of truth against someone who is solely devoted to the topic. On top of that your only other defence being someone who CLAIMS to be solely devoted to the topic yet has himself provided no real credentials aside from bookknoledge and his only claims on historical fact which he himself cannot fully back up and has left quite a few points up to interpritation and speculation. It was also only a THREAD on a message board, not an entire site dedicated to the topic.
yes a site devoted to medivel arms and armour with a thread devoted to plate/vs arrows by a guy who is being defered to by others in that forum as the resident expert on that subject. like I said get him to say tal is right and I'll conceed it. I suppose in your world its jsut not possible that he might actualy know more than Tal.
None of my comments here are a 'Me, too' variety.
I have spent quite some time researching them, as well as using my extensive knowledge from growing up in a historical recreation group.
Everything I posted is well documented.
It is not attacking you in any way.
Also, your comments on my inability to have an original thought are not nice. Please be nice. Niceness is a virtue, and this is not a flame thread. Gikk fucked around with this message on 04-09-2004 at 01:30 AM.
Click her god damned post. She proved you wrong a couple times better then Tal. But since "omg ur troll lolol" is your only argument, we have to get someone WE DONT EVEN KNOW to say something he wouldn't ANYWAY to get past this wall of sheer ignorance..
quote:
Somthor attempted to be funny by writing:
his arguments are flawed, he is comparing apples to oranges. I didnt just google it nor did I pull it out of my ass. I used to be quite the history buff, now I am not claiming to be a expert, I am mearly claiming that Im not wrong on this particular occasion.As to Gikk she's on ignore, I make it a habit not to read her posts on the basis that she only responds to attack me, says nothing productive, or supported by any real facts other than whatever she is curently "me too'ing" from someone else who might actualy have a orginal thought.
since thats the case responding to her would only be feeding a troll, or result in accusations of me being the same.
We have already established it is NOT apples and oranges, and in the one point you claimed it as such, which for the rest of it apples and oranges comparison analogy doesn't even APPLY.
Ahhh, and you are aware baiting is a form of trolling, which is exactly what you are doing. As well as attacking behind a viel which is mostly despicable, since you refute any counter attack or being called on your behaviour through the abuse of ignore. Point being, you cannot attack someone, and then base your reason for attacking them being an attack on you when you have them on ignore in the first place. It's like calling someone names, knowing they are on the other side of the window where they can hear you but you can't hear them. Kindergarten stuff there.
That aside from the fact she has backed up more of her facts and information with more base information than your 'expert' from some sword forum has, and you use it as your only defense aside from your supposed knowledge on the subject. Not to mention her position in the recreation of history and midevil lore.
quote:
Gikk wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Would someone possibly quote me, please?None of my comments here are a 'Me, too' variety.
I have spent quite some time researching them, as well as using my extensive knowledge from growing up in a historical recreation group.
Everything I posted is well documented.
It is not attacking you in any way.
Also, your comments on my inability to have an original thought are not nice. Please be nice. Niceness is a virtue, and this is not a flame thread.
There ya go. Quoted you.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Trent said:
There ya go. Quoted you.
Thank you.
You get a hug.
*hugs the trent uberly~*
^_^
And copy/paste from the page would remove the links..
quote:
Somthor enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
yes a site devoted to medivel arms and armour with a thread devoted to plate/vs arrows by a guy who is being defered to by others in that forum as the resident expert on that subject. like I said get him to say tal is right and I'll conceed it. I suppose in your world its jsut not possible that he might actualy know more than Tal.
A site dedicated to SWORDS. With a few things, minor, here and there about armor. Arrows being only 3 threads I could bring up in a search.
He was only one of a few people even discussing the topic, and I saw no one deferring to him as a 'resident expert' any more than I saw a few people taking his word on information he was giving to them. Neither supported or backed up by any factual evidence beyond his word versus history I might add. He talks as someone who has read the history books, and studied, but that is a far cry from being an expert. He is well worded, but there is NOTHING that would lead me to believe him any more an expert on the subject than Tal or anyone else, and he is not some all encompassing bastion of midevil weaponary and warfare. For one, Tactical Combat and Warfare is MY area, and he didn't cover ANYTHING in regards to that other than retracing some very vague historical accounts, and spent more time on the numerical aspect (Numerical being technical) that the actuall PRACTICAL aspect of arrow usage against armor. Which is outside the argument to begin with. Since practical tactical application is typicaly a far cry from technical usage.
