rohirwine
-
Posts
2.853 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by rohirwine
-
-
I flew an A340 few weeks ago (from South Africa). Not much impressive (economic class, tail section, you know...
), but much better than the B747 wich i flew two years ago. (actually i flew two versions of it, the smaller one and the largest one: both had microscopic seats).... -
Excellent question, Anco, even if i suspect a bit early timed...
-
"At your service, and your family's"
-
That's why you wisely stayed clear of linguistics...
-
Well, maybe we can unpin this thread...
-
More than enough, thank you! You know, I always wondered what the difference is between fighting with sword & shield and fighting with falchion & buckler. If it doesn't bother you, could you explain that to me please? What makes the latter special in comparision with the former?
Well, basically it's the same difference that passes between a caterpillar and a F1 sportscar.
Well, shield and sword fencing has ben reconstructed for the most part, there is no manual about this kind of technique, as long as i know, there are many miniatures from manuscripts though. And archeological finds, and exemplars from collections.
Putting this elements together has been vital to reconstruct the basics of this fencing. Some details remain obsure though (e.g. if and how they parried with the blades). This kind of fencing relies over strength and mass. A stocky fencer has a great advantage over a thin one. You have to bash the opponent with all your strength and momentum, using your body to improove sweep power, and using your shield with the bulk of your weight (when you attack with it).
Buckler and falchion/sword fencing is much more substantiated by original sources (there is a XIII cent. fencing manual about this weapons combination, iirc, and other manuals followed up to mid XVI cent.). It was typical of foot soldiers, mostly archers and crossbowmen, since they could not afford to carry the weight of a full shield and a sword (and i dare say they prolly could not afford their cost as well), being already burdened by their primary weapon and projectiles. This is a kind of "last resort" fencing style, very fast (the falchion, being lighter and more "aerodynamic" helps with this), a hit and slash technique, rather than a bash and crush one (typical of the former fencing style). It uses the buckler mainly for deflecting, rather than blocking, enemy's strikes. If you want to block a strike, you have to use your blade. The buckler can easily be used to punch your opponent though (either in the face or in lower parts, like knees, groing.... ..ouch). The main point here is: do not allow your opponent to get you. Missile troops were rarely protected like men-at-arms or dismounted knights. They had to parry, try to hit, and if not successful, run faster than they could. As i said, a last resort fencing.
As spectator, you can enjoy both kind of techniques. The former being more crude, expressing power and might. The latter expressing cunning, agility, lightning reflexes (it's amazing how fast do the blades dance, releasing, from time to time, some sparks of heated metal).
Hope this is enough (but i'm here for more, if anyone is curious about other details...)
In any case, i'll try to set up a little personal homepage, and be sure a medieval fencing pics gallery will be included (maybe i'll manage to put some short clips too, but this sounds a bit more complicated...)
-
Just be sure those readings could lead to something useful like some Ardaquenta immissions... (hint, hint)
-
-
I knew it!
One question from me: could you elaborate a bit on your experience with medieval combat experiments and how they help you on your work on TLA? Ie. in what way could we see your influence back in the project?
Well, i began almost for joke. A friend of mine hooked me into this group, since his girlfriend (now BA in medieval history) found out about this. I confess i was a bit puzzled at first. A bunch of guys and girls bashing each other with sticks, falchions, swords and spears looked a bit far from mental sanity.
I already knew the existence of "reenactment" groups like that of John Howe and Gerry Embelton. But they seem far too high classed (and budgeted) to be comparable at local level.
Anyway, i began following fencing lessons (other activities are medieval music, dance and cookery). I realized that, even if imperfect, the aim was not that of going around clad in medieval garments for the amusement of the public, but to research over military technologies and combat skills of medieval and early reinassance period. Budget is essential when reenacting (costumes tend to be very expensive), scientific rigorousness when trying to practice a bit of experimental archeology. I'm now short of two weapons from finishing the base set (quarterstaff, sword and shield, 1,5 hand sword, falchion and buckler, spear, dagger). I also specialized in thrown weapons (dagger, axe) and archery (i made a bow myself, and i shoot every time i can: it's addictive). With time we'll make our costumes starting from scrap, and trying not to take industrial shortcuts when possible (as istance we do use industrial laminates for armor, but we avoid using rivetters or welding tools to assemble them, and we hand work them to put them in shape, and the rest).
When i applied to TLA i didn't realize this experience could be useful, most of all because the "combat section" of the game was apparently already designed. With time though, i began reading the design related documents already avaible and i realized some things were conceptually applied in the opposite way they should be.
Moreover, even if we take Arda and JRRT work as main inspiration and source for "real Arda" mechanics, it's undebatable that the professor itself thought to "real" medieval situations, when creating Arda, even if through the lens of a great fantasy (man, how i hate this adjective!) epic.
Hence, if a sword was used as a cutting weapon in dark ages, it would be used likewise in Arda (this is not always trivial, mind out). If a mail armour protects best from cutting weapons and less well from piercing ones, so will be in Arda and so on.
With the strong support (and sometimes fundamental direction) of Gilluin (Shawn), i think these technical details are those most influenced by my work.
Another feature (still to be completely defined, though) i worked hard on is the Ships Segment of the game. I love sailing, i always loved ships. It was quite natural that i'd get involved (again, with Shawn) in this part of the game. The only thing i regret is that we still have to define if Ships, and most of all ship to ship combat, were so important in Arda, as JRRT depicted it. Time and further research will tell us the outcome
Lastly i was involved in a field close to weapons and equipments. That is land combat (no doubt it's of paramount importance, here). Formations, tactics, morale and the rest. But since it's one of the things dealt in these very days, i shall say no more...
Hope this is enough to sooth your curiosity...
-
Nice pointing out Rowan, we'll check out and b sure this won't be looked over...
-
Picture of my wifey and myself?
Well, i might find one that doesn't embarass me (not that i take obscene pictures of us, just to be clear, but i tend to be very shy about my emotive sphere
)...Anyway, never thought this would turn out into a "LotR national editions" thread, sorta proud of...
-
Uh, i suppose it's not bad (we have two different translations). We both have Imladris and Rivendell, and that sort of things. The translator made some mistakes (but probably because there were different translators for the different books: one for the Hobbit, one for LotR, one for silmarillion.. etc.), like when dealing with Orcs (i'm not going to explain it in depth here, but where the professor used goblins or orcs, they were translated with "orchetti", something like "orclings"). Maybe this happened because the italian word for orc (Orco) recalls more a Troll, than an orc.
The most annoying feature of the first edition of LotR is the absence of the introduction written by the professor itself.
The intro was purposedly left over, because Elemire Zola (editor of the edition) had to write it's own (typical italian protagonism), and that intrduction said some things that did not fit well in what JRRT expressedly affirmed. Most of all, Zola intended the trylogy as a big metaphor for the strife between West and East (democracy-communism, to be more explicit). JRRT had always rejected such an interpretation (if i'm not wrong, in the very introduction he wrote), hence his introduction was a bit "encumbrant", if you get what i mean...
-
Even if very short, Gilluin summary is perfectly fine.
;) -
Welcome aboard Luis! And kudos for your craft and artistic talent!
;) -
Just to add some issues.
A BMS might actually foster an arms race for the simple reason that one simple method to overcome a protection system is to "saturate" (overflood) it with targets: chances of error increase, the system might even be made incapable of dealing more targets, and thus mght fail to intercept one ore more nuclear vectors.
Tha result is a nice termonuclear clash, since i doubt that the US, being hit by nuclear weapons, would not retailiate (sp?).
The only sure thing, imho, is: if you don't want to be stroke by nuclear weapons: do not build them and do not "tactlessy" meddle in foregin countries affairs...
-
I read on Scientific American that the shield is effectless, or easily made ineffectual, at least. Rumors say that the tests were "doped" because the guidance system was not ready at the moment they were held (SA).
A part this, financing a tool like that can lead to an unpleasant effect: nations (or groups) really intended to hit US by ICBM or other ballistic missiles types may be tempted to try the gamble before the shield becomes operational. This is the same reason wich brought the infamous "Stellar Wars" (or was it Star Wars?) program to a stall situation during the Reagan era. It actually made the chance of a nuclear first strike tempting for USSR (since they had no such a project, nor the capability to build one in a short period of time).
Besides this, i doubt anyone on earth is planning to use nuclear missiles to hit US.
It's much easyer to infiltrate a "dirt bomb", and much less expensive.
-
Another thing related to the movies is that i felt the armor suits for Gondor people were "switched", in the sense that the RotK men of Gondor wore armours more suited for the Numenoreans and vice versa.
Gondor lost part of his greatness during his existence, hence a more economic and less sumptuous style would have fit the Third Age, wether a more complex and expensive (plates cost a lot more than mail) one would have fit men of the Last Alliance... ...just my two cents.
-
Hmm, i agree with your point of view, Adam, but i must say that i do not see the examples from the site you linked as fine and convincing creations inspired by the professor's works (dwarven armour apart: that is a great work).
As a matter of facts, those works (the dwarven shortsword... ....brrr... ...orkish helmets with tengwar runes... ...double brrrr....) seem a bit crude to me, not much tolkienish.
If we want an example of perfectly fine and crafted blades, we may look at this site:
All are historical swords, but this doesn't mean they are not fitted for Arda. After all, most of the designing process of a real weapon comes out of physics and needs of combat, wich (as long as we are talking about fighting techniques) are closely related to those of Arda, imho.
The movies did not depict Middle Earth in a fealthy way, but at least they had some real art and fine crafters working there... ...imho, we should blend that sort of quality (talking about design) with our phylologic work over the professor's writings....
-
*me shivers in ph3ar*
-
I say: get this TLA thing done and show 'em (with no commercial purposes intended, of course)
-
Well, at least now i know about what brand of elec. guitar to get if i actually do get one.
What about electric bass guitars? Any good budget ones?
Well, someone prefers the Gibson Les Paul, as rock electric guitar.
When i used to play i had an Ibanez Artstar 400, a jazzy guitar wich left itself to be rocked quite a bit (with a valve Marshall). Usually, with good amplification and effects, you can get good sounds even from a broomstick with phone cable strapped upon it...
Lately i preferred to play acoustic (even if amplified) with D'addario acoustic strings: they are great! Talking about acoustic guitars in general i won't suggest to go on savings: sustain and natural volume are essential (even if amplified): better postpone the expense and save some money to buy a better guitar, than waste it on a birch log barely planed off...
...in the acoustic field good brands are Washburn, Martin, Ovation (i love those ones), some models of the Ibanez (cheaper) and Fender. They all cost like diamonds, so better practice with cheaper electric ones before spending more than what you needed... (as Klaasy wisdomely suggested)
As top acoustic amplification i heard that Trace-Acoustic are great amplifiers, but never had the chance to try one... (man: they cost a lot!)
For beginners i suggest to buy a cheap classic guitar, though. I began over a Sakura 100. And yes, even if i began studying classic guitar, i soon found out you could play a bit of folk-rock-jazz-blues with a classic guitar too, just do not expect to sound like Mark Knopfler or The Edge.
Why classic guitar? Because it has a decent volume, strings are soft (excellent strings are the Augustine, Bleu kind)and don't tear your fingers over what you can bear, most of all they can be very cheap: you won't regret too much after a spark of a campfire will brand some exhotic sketch over the top of it. With time you can decide wich kind of guitar is best suited to your style, phisical build (little or big hands...) and your wallet (the most important aspect of the deal...
) -
I bought my father a novel, my mom a necklace, and my sister a pair of earrings.
-
*Passes Adam a
to those evil commercial developers... I completely agree with Adam, here. Some of the solutions proposed (afaik) are really against what Tolkien imagined, imho. Come on! A Balrog being summoned by Sauron? Balrogs were fallen maiars, Sauron was a fallen Maiar, even if a bit superior in power. Balrogs and Sauron were on the same side only because they both were tempted and seduced by evil (Morgoth), but they had different purposes and (if we can call it so) agendas... ...a balrog would have never responded to Sauron's summon, imho, if ever Tolkien imagined such a thing (and i doubt it)...
-
Interesting review, thanks.
Would you mind to post some more covering game mechanics and graphics?
Anyway
Behold! The fifth has arrived
in General TLA Discussion
Posted
*Wonders how his interview thread turned out into a "Debate german grammar issues" one...
Well, not that this annoys me, as long as it keeps my thread alive...