Compendium of myths and truths

calandale said:

As to rapiers, I was under the impression that they served a purpose similar to that which you note for the estoc, but for a less military environment - i.e. they allowed the best chance of of dealing with a moderately armored foe, for the least cost, in terms of weight. Probably just talking out of my ass though.

Click to expand...

Rapiers have always been a civilian sword. They give you the most range of any one-handed melee weapon, and (mostly guesswork and barely-related sport fencing experience here) I believe they allow you to keep more distance between your opponent and yourself, giving a skilled swordsman more opportunities for defence. Eventually swords got lighter and quicker on the defence, so they could be shorter, evolving into the smallsword -- the range didn't need to be so large to give you time to make an effective parry. If you've seen the distance between a pair of good rapier (or even foil or epee) fencers and the distance between a pair of good longsword fencers, the longsword fencers stand a good deal closer to each other.

But as I said, this is mainly uneducated theory, so I'll let Damien shoot it all down at his leisure.

Pruriently,
Winter

The basic idea is correct, though, and is just as true today as it was 1000 years ago. You do have odd branches like the rapier and dress swords, but warfare is a pragmatic affair, and for the most part it is easy to see causes and effects. No rule without exceptions, of course, and every evolutionary path is bound to spawn evolutionary dead ends. But I don't think the theory is due for replacement any time soon.

Click to expand...

As far as I am aware, the theory is now largely regarded as faulty because there are -many- exceptions. For instance, a bardiche is perfectly capable of cracking a breastplate. Yet - plate armour still evolved. Rapiers are useless in the warfare of the time they evolved in. Crossbows continued to develop -despite- the fact that they could not reliably penetrate even "rudimentary" armour. Firearms continued to develop, also despite being virtually useless in their very first incarnation. The estoc rapidly fell out of use despite being -good- against armour. Etc. I'm not claiming an opinion on the subject myself, just saying that this is what I understand about the slow death of the "arms and armour race" concept.

Bad analogy. Sports cars exist. Rather, calling something a sports truck seems more appropriate (even though they are doing so now).

Click to expand...

I suppose the best analogy is actually if someone called a Ford F350 a "truck-car." It's not a car, it's a truck. You can't make a car a truck, and a truck is not a car, by proper definition at least. Regardless of the difficulty of finding a really good analogy, I think the point of it is clear, yes?

As to rapiers, I was under the impression that they served a purpose similar to that which you note for the estoc, but for a less military environment - i.e. they allowed the best chance of of dealing with a moderately armored foe, for the least cost, in terms of weight. Probably just talking out of my ass though.

Click to expand...

Depends on what you call 'moderate' armour. If by 'moderate' you are referring to a jack. Then yes, you're right. A rapier can thrust through one. Anything else? No. The rapier evolved very strangely. It was -solely- a civilian defense weapon considered utterly useless on the battlefield until armour practically disappeared. Which is why the rapier is a prime example of how the arms race doesn't make sense in a medieval context - because it was a weapon that evolved despite being useless for any real military application.

Damien, by "Not primary weapon" I think they mean "Not everyone had a sword".

Click to expand...

Certainly not. Just because the people who claim the former, never seem to claim the latter in conjunction with it. As a matter of fact, they specifically point out that "a knight had other weapons he would choose to use before his sword" and so on. They are definitely saying that swords were not considered 'primary' weapons, not that they weren't "common" weapons.

the common medieval footsoldier would have a spear, or axe, am I wrong? The sword has always been the sign of the wealthy.

Click to expand...

Are you wrong? We don't really know for sure. But this is what people often say. Historians seem to, in more modern research, disagree. The historical accounts, the treatises, the archaeological evidence, -  everything we have seems to indicate that the sword was actually a lot more common on the medieval battlefield than was originally believed. Hell, Italian armies in the 13th and 14th century had, apparently, entire divisions of men with sword and buckler.

So are brand-name jeans today. But does everyone own brand-name jeans? No, some people buy generic brand jeans.

Click to expand...

Excellent analogy, and I'll tell you why.

Some people can't afford brand-name jeans. Absolutely true. But how many people DO have brand-name jeans? A **** of a lot. Hell, I'm wearing Levis right now. In 400 years if someone claimed that, in the 20th-21st centuries brand-name jeans were not commonly seen in American streets, they would be wrong. They would be correct if they said that not -everyone- owned a pair, but they would be terribly wrong if they claimed they were uncommon.

Same goes for swords. The claim that not everyone had one is true. The claim that they were excessively uncommon is now considered a rather extreme exaggeration, especially as the medieval period rolls on.

Rapiers have always been a civilian sword. They give you the most range of any one-handed melee weapon, and (mostly guesswork and barely-related sport fencing experience here) I believe they allow you to keep more distance between your opponent and yourself, giving a skilled swordsman more opportunities for defence. Eventually swords got lighter and quicker on the defence, so they could be shorter, evolving into the smallsword -- the range didn't need to be so large to give you time to make an effective parry. If you've seen the distance between a pair of good rapier (or even foil or epee) fencers and the distance between a pair of good longsword fencers, the longsword fencers stand a good deal closer to each other.

Click to expand...

All completely correct. Except for the last part. Foil and epee fencers stand fairly close to each other just because their weapons are considerably shorter.

It's also funny to note that the rapier was a rather crap-tastic weapon. It was considered too heavy and slow compared to smallswords, and it was considered rather awkward and slow (!) compared to battlefield swords due to its rather extreme length. This is when it was first developed though. Most people don't realize that many early rapiers were as long as many two-hand swords, ranging upwards of 55 inches in total length.

Damien said:

It's interesting to note that many military historians are now rejecting this general sweep of military history. Apparently there's a ton of factors not considered therein, like the development of the rapier - which is totally contrary to this scheme. Anyway - not being argumentative, I just think it's really interesting that what you wrote there is how most people have viewed it for a long time, but for the last maybe 5 or 10 years that theory has been under serious scrutiny and debate.

Click to expand...

  it's a broad definition. On a weapon vs. defence level then it would throw up a number of aberrations. However if you open up the 'defence' (or offence for that matter) definition to apply to tactical and similar changes the pattern still holds true - for example the abandoning of fortified warfare in modern times doesn't make sense on a pure comparison, but if we take into account the nature of modern warfare (thus making mobility a part of the defence) it begins to make sense.
There are other things one needs to consider when using this kind of comparison - many military weapons begin life in the civilian market. The rapier is one such example - it's a perfect weapon for self defence at the time (longer than a knife, light enough to carry around easily and so on). The same is true of the shotgun, spear, bow and a host of other weapons.

Not really. The statement 'crossbows couldn't penetrate plate' is entirely correct. So long as the reader understands that 'plate' refers to medieval plate harness, of course, and not early plate like bronze cuirasses. By the time armoursmiths were -capable- of making plate, their craft was already advanced enough that crossbows simply didn't stand a chance. Crossbows had enough problems just getting through mail.

Click to expand...

Bad example on my part I guess  Though as you say, it depends on how your defining plate. In my defence, I did state that part of the problem is that we haven't specified a time period

By the time the plate harness shows up, the craft of creating the various pieces that would make up a harness was already far enough along that armoursmiths fully well knew how to avoid decreased mobility.

Click to expand...

Another statement needing clarification. Plate doesn't slow you down ordinarily, though anyone fighting in full plate in the middle of a desert isn't going to be moving too quickly for very long. It's like taking into account the statistical aberrations you mentioned though, at this rate you end up with statements such as " a key problem of plate was it's inability to protect the wearer from freak lightning strikes, meteors or rains of pestilent frogs." A historical misconceptions page may well be useful, but only if we first tightly define the scope of the thread.

This statement is false. If we really look at what is intended by the term "primary weapon" we quickly see that swords were primary weapons. A knight would charge in with his lance, and then draw his sword for the largest portion of combat. How is that not 'primary?'

Click to expand...

In military terms, the primary weapon is tied in with the primary purpose of the unit or soldier - a sword would not be a primary weapon for a knight, since his primary purpose is to charge with the lance (in modern terms, the sword is a back up or last resort weapon). In modern terms, an anti-armour squad's AA weapon is considered their primary weapon, despite the fact that they are far more likely to be using their rifles for most of the time. It's one of those things which crop up from attempting to use modern military(or tactical) definitions in historical(or civilian) contexts - outside of strategic terms it makes absolutely no sense, since the definition of primary is far more broad.

In regards to "plate" or "chain" mail, I'm not disagreeing that the terms are flawed, but I always thought it was understood that "plate mail" meant a mail covering with plates of iron protecting vital or vulnerable parts. And "chain" mail simply identifying plain mail armour. I suppose calling the full plate armour of the later periods "plate mail" would be a misconception, as there was very little mail parts. My point was that so long as people understood what the terms really meant there was no harm in calling it such for the sake of clarification.

Archonsod said:

a sword would not be a primary weapon for a knight, since his primary purpose is to charge with the lance (in modern terms, the sword is a back up or last resort weapon).

Click to expand...

Not necessarily true, a knight was by no means limited to simply charging around with his lance, especially in the early medieval period where he would be largely fighting other mounted enemies with closer range weapons. I would instead say both the spear or lance and sword were the primary weapons of the knight. In fact mail armour came into wide use mostly because of its ability to deflect blows from swords or other edged weapons.

It is hard to decide on what a "primary weapon" was without an idea of the specific unit using the weapon, as Archonsod pointed out. You can't simply say, for instance, "the sword was the primary weapon of infantry." A primary weapon has little to do with how common the weapon in question is.

Norman Knights threw spears or jabbed at their enemies in an overhand style. They didn't couch their spears.

First Citizen said:

Not necessarily true, a knight was by no means limited to simply charging around with his lance, especially in the early medieval period where he would be largely fighting other mounted enemies with closer range weapons. I would instead say both the spear or lance and sword were the primary weapons of the knight.

Click to expand...

I was giving the reasoning behind the term rather than an accurate example. The primary purpose of the mounted knight was to perform a cavalry charge regardless of the weapon, therefore the primary weapon is whatever they use in that charge, be it spear, lance or indeed sword. Hence my example of the machine gun unit - if we took an Anti tank infantry squad armed with a single, one shot disposable launcher it would still be their primary weapon since they are designated as anti tank, despite the fact that it may never see use in a given engagement.

It is hard to decide on what a "primary weapon" was without an idea of the specific unit using the weapon, as Archonsod pointed out. You can't simply say, for instance, "the sword was the primary weapon of infantry." A primary weapon has little to do with how common the weapon in question is.

Click to expand...

That's the difference in terminology. In the academic world, that statement would mean most infantry used swords. In military terms, it means all infantry were swordsmen. Thus do we get confusion...

Damien said:

The basic idea is correct, though, and is just as true today as it was 1000 years ago. You do have odd branches like the rapier and dress swords, but warfare is a pragmatic affair, and for the most part it is easy to see causes and effects. No rule without exceptions, of course, and every evolutionary path is bound to spawn evolutionary dead ends. But I don't think the theory is due for replacement any time soon.

Click to expand...

As far as I am aware, the theory is now largely regarded as faulty because there are -many- exceptions. For instance, a bardiche is perfectly capable of cracking a breastplate. Yet - plate armour still evolved. Rapiers are useless in the warfare of the time they evolved in. Crossbows continued to develop -despite- the fact that they could not reliably penetrate even "rudimentary" armour. Firearms continued to develop, also despite being virtually useless in their very first incarnation. The estoc rapidly fell out of use despite being -good- against armour. Etc. I'm not claiming an opinion on the subject myself, just saying that this is what I understand about the slow death of the "arms and armour race" concept.

Click to expand...

Well, the flaws in these arguments are to be found in the controlled environments of modern historians. You say a bardiche is perfectly capable of cracking a breastplate, but I doubt it could be done with any amount of ease on the battlefield. Just having a breastplate positioned - maybe even fixed - in an experiment to test out a weapon's capabilties would only be relevant to assess a best case scenario. You have the luxury of hitting the breastplate at exactly the angle you want, and you have the luxury of expending as much energy in the attack as you want. It was certainly a weapon capable of cracking a breastplate in practice, but the conditions would have to be favourable. In any case, it is only logical that when armour develops, anti-armour weapons also develop. This does not halt the development of armour, quite the opposite: stronger armours are developed. As efficient as the bardiche was against plate, I'm sure it was even more efficient against lesser armour. It would have been illogical not to continue development of plate.

Rapiers have more complex explanations. Some are dress swords, and certainly not primary weapons of battle; some are civilian swords and thus don't have to consider armour; and some are intended for the battlefield in a side-arm capacity. I'm only speculating, but could the advent of firearms have something to do with this?

Crossbows continued to evolve because it was easier and quicker to train crossbowmen than bowmen. I find the development of the crossbow perfectly logical, because you would want to improve it so it would be less weak. The benefit of its speed of training was too great to be discarded. Sure, if one had infinite resources and infinite time, we would only see the biggest and mightiest weapons on the battlefield. As it is, though, the development of light tanks continues because resources simply don't exist to build heavy tanks in great numbers.

Firearms continued to develop, also perfectly logical, because they were far from useless on the battlefield. Sure, they couldn't hit a barn door at ten paces, but they introduced a whole new level of sheer terror on the battlefield. As Napoleon said, morale is 2/3 of a battle, and these were entirely new sounds. The psychological effects of sound should not be underestimated. Plus, the power of gunpowder showed lots of room for improvement. Consider rocket artillery. The first models in WWII were horribly inaccurate, but they caused the enemy to surrender in droves. In the case of the Stalin-organ, it sometimes made one's own soldiers surrender. One would be mad not to develop the technology further.

As for the estoc, I don't know. Maybe it had reached as far as it could possibly go in its evolution, and other weapons were found to surpass it for its intended purpose? Kind of like the battleship being rendered obsolete by the submarine and aircraft carrier.

ArabArcher35 said:

Norman Knights threw spears or jabbed at their enemies in an overhand style. They didn't couch their spears.

Click to expand...

Actually...

http://hastings1066.com/bayeux32.shtml

Look at the rider right under the word "hic". But yes, for the most part it would have been something like this:

http://hastings1066.com/bayeux30.shtml

Kissaki said:

Sure, if one had infinite resources and infinite time, we would only see the biggest and mightiest weapons on the battlefield. As it is, though, the development of light tanks continues because resources simply don't exist to build heavy tanks in great numbers.

Click to expand...

Light Tanks continue to serve a purpose no other vehicle can fulfill on the battlefield, hence they're likely to still be developed until either their functions can be taken over by a superior vehicle or they are no longer required.

Sure, they couldn't hit a barn door at ten paces, but they introduced a whole new level of sheer terror on the battlefield.

Click to expand...

  Again, it's a role nothing else could fulfill - cavalry were too expensive to field in large numbers (as was artillery) and you still needed (still do) infantry to hold ground once you'd won it. Of course, you could try fielding melee armed troops, but one of the main reasons the firearm was so effective was that it can kill (especially when fired in a volley) before the melee troops can even engage your unit, let alone attempt to fight it.

Archonsod said:

Kissaki said:

Sure, if one had infinite resources and infinite time, we would only see the biggest and mightiest weapons on the battlefield. As it is, though, the development of light tanks continues because resources simply don't exist to build heavy tanks in great numbers.

Click to expand...

Light Tanks continue to serve a purpose no other vehicle can fulfill on the battlefield, hence they're likely to still be developed until either their functions can be taken over by a superior vehicle or they are no longer required.

Click to expand...

True. But you're getting specific with what was intended to be a simlpe analogy. Ok, let me alter my example to include heavy and super heavy tanks.

Sure, they couldn't hit a barn door at ten paces, but they introduced a whole new level of sheer terror on the battlefield.

Click to expand...

  Again, it's a role nothing else could fulfill - cavalry were too expensive to field in large numbers (as was artillery) and you still needed (still do) infantry to hold ground once you'd won it. Of course, you could try fielding melee armed troops, but one of the main reasons the firearm was so effective was that it can kill (especially when fired in a volley) before the melee troops can even engage your unit, let alone attempt to fight it.

Click to expand...

They had bows and arrows - which were far more effective than firearms when it came to killing. Far better accuracy, far better rate of fire, far more reliable, and even better penetration. The early firearms were not prized for their killing power.

Bows and arrows could not penetrate plate armor beyond point-blank range. A bullet fired from a handgonne or arquebus, however, could.

ArabArcher35 said:

Bows and arrows could not penetrate plate armor beyond point-blank range. A bullet fired from a handgonne or arquebus, however, could.

Click to expand...

A bullet from an arquebus or handgonne could not reliably penetrate plate, and if it did, it would be at point blank range - and their performance dropped drastically after that. Up to the first 30 meters or so, the early firearms did indeed have greater penetration than bows (but were inaccurate even at this range), but beyond that, they were not impressive. We do not have any penetration or accuracy to speak of until the rifled barrel, much later.

I never spoke of accuracy, Kissaki. I was simply saying, a bullet has an easier time penetrating plate armor than an arrow would. Even crossbows had more difficulty. The reason gunpowder gained popularity is because anyone can use it! It's innacurate as hell, but even the lowliest peasant given rudimentary training on how to load could fire one, unlike the longbow which literally took decades to train. Arquebi could be used en masse, cheaply, effectively, and loudly.

Kissaki said:

True. But you're getting specific with what was intended to be a simlpe analogy. Ok, let me alter my example to include heavy and super heavy tanks.

Click to expand...

I was just pointing out another reason why a weapon may be developed when there are other weapons better at specific tasks. It may be that one version offers superior capabilities in a specific area which the other weapon doesn't (for example, a light tank is usually far more mobile than the heavy or super heavy tank) or it may simply be that it combines acceptable functionality in a number of areas rather than being specialised in a single area.

They had bows and arrows - which were far more effective than firearms when it came to killing. Far better accuracy, far better rate of fire, far more reliable, and even better penetration. The early firearms were not prized for their killing power.

Click to expand...

Yes, but a bowman needs to be trained, often for several years, before they can use the bow to full effect. The early firearms in comparison could be picked up and used by just about anybody with minimal training. In the time it would take you to train a hundred bowmen, you could potentially train thousands (if not more) in using a firearm, assuming you had enough weapons. No matter how good your bows are, if your taking one hundred bowmen into battle where the enemy has 10 000 muskets your not going to come out on top. There's also social and economic factors to consider - bowmen are more expensive to maintain and harder to replace. A gunner isn't.
To be honest, comparing a bow to a gun isn't all that accurate. Both were designed to be operated at range, but they also have some significant differences - bows become useless as the enemy close, while a gun gets more effective the closer the enemy gets. With the invention of the plug bayonet, a gun becomes useful at both range and melee, something a bow cannot do.

We do not have any penetration or accuracy to speak of until the rifled barrel, much later

Click to expand...

Accuracy didn't improve much till rifling (something that was in use on cannon from around the 15th Century, if not earlier) but penetration isn't really dependent on rifling, at least in a black powder weapon. You can improve penetration in a number of ways, from calibre to the quality of the powder.

Hah, Archonsod, I think I already said a shortened version of what you just said 

Archonsod said:

Kissaki said:

They had bows and arrows - which were far more effective than firearms when it came to killing. Far better accuracy, far better rate of fire, far more reliable, and even better penetration. The early firearms were not prized for their killing power.

Click to expand...

Yes, but a bowman needs to be trained, often for several years, before they can use the bow to full effect. The early firearms in comparison could be picked up and used by just about anybody with minimal training. In the time it would take you to train a hundred bowmen, you could potentially train thousands (if not more) in using a firearm, assuming you had enough weapons. No matter how good your bows are, if your taking one hundred bowmen into battle where the enemy has 10 000 muskets your not going to come out on top. There's also social and economic factors to consider - bowmen are more expensive to maintain and harder to replace. A gunner isn't.

Click to expand...

The crossbow already filled the easily trained niche. In fact, it's easier to train someone to properly use a crossbow than a firearm. Firearms were cheaper, though, but the point remains that gunners weren't trained because of their deadliness. It was not at all effective when it came to "killing before the melee troops could engage". It might, however, cause them to run.

To be honest, comparing a bow to a gun isn't all that accurate. Both were designed to be operated at range, but they also have some significant differences - bows become useless as the enemy close, while a gun gets more effective the closer the enemy gets. With the invention of the plug bayonet, a gun becomes useful at both range and melee, something a bow cannot do.

Click to expand...

Bowmen were actually very good melee troops, because the bow wasn't the only thing they carried, after all. Longbowmen, in particular, were also skilled with the sword, and were well suited for melee.

Accuracy didn't improve much till rifling (something that was in use on cannon from around the 15th Century, if not earlier) but penetration isn't really dependent on rifling, at least in a black powder weapon. You can improve penetration in a number of ways, from calibre to the quality of the powder.

Click to expand...

When you manage to improve trajectory, you manage to improve range and thus, penetration. Even such a simple thing as barrel length greatly affects accuracy and range.

ArabArcher35 said:

I never spoke of accuracy, Kissaki. I was simply saying, a bullet has an easier time penetrating plate armor than an arrow would. Even crossbows had more difficulty.

Click to expand...

Only at point blank range. Beyond that, bow weapons were more powerful.

The reason gunpowder gained popularity is because anyone can use it!

Click to expand...

As with the crossbow. The reason gunpowder gained popularity is because it was loud and cheap.

It's innacurate as hell, but even the lowliest peasant given rudimentary training on how to load could fire one, unlike the longbow which literally took decades to train. Arquebi could be used en masse, cheaply, effectively, and loudly.

Click to expand...

Depends how you define "effectively". Effective at lowering enemy morale, absolutely. Effective at killing, certainly not.

By the late 1400s, pretty much everyone wore plate armor is some fashion. Longbows and crossbows hardly stood a chance on a renaissance battlefield.

Kissaki said:

The crossbow already filled the easily trained niche. In fact, it's easier to train someone to properly use a crossbow than a firearm.

Click to expand...

Yes, but in order to load a crossbow you still need someone with a fair amount of physical strength. Even with a winch mechanism, loading it can be a tiresome process. In comparison, a gun can be loaded by a virtual invalid and fired theoretically forever without tiring out the user. The crossbow allows you to take a bunch of peasants and turn them into a killing machine. The gun lets you take those same peasants, their children and their grandparents and turn them into a killing machine. The cost of the weapon also meant you could afford to train a lot more than you would with a crossbow.

It was not at all effective when it came to "killing before the melee troops could engage". It might, however, cause them to run.

Click to expand...

I was using the word 'killing' in the sense of "removing from combat" rather than actual kills. Nonetheless, at close range a volley from firearms is going to cause a fair amount of  casualties. I'm not sure about causing the enemy to run - Crossbows would kill as many people without the noise and flash. Noise and flash would be fairly terrifying to inexperienced troops, but after the first time it's not going to have much effect (especially when the troops realise your defenceless until you can reload)

Bowmen were actually very good melee troops, because the bow wasn't the only thing they carried, after all. Longbowmen, in particular, were also skilled with the sword, and were well suited for melee.

Click to expand...

Gunners often carried other weapons (or the gun itself could be used as a weapon - early firearms could be suprisingly efficient clubs). Whether the user was skilled with it or not would depend on the individual - Longbowmen (At least the British Longbowmen) were under no obligation to train with a weapon other than their bows. Another key thing about a gun is that it can still be used in melee combat - a bowman would need to switch to his melee weapon, a gunner can use the gun in combat (firing or as a weapon).

When you manage to improve trajectory, you manage to improve range and thus, penetration. Even such a simple thing as barrel length greatly affects accuracy and range.

Click to expand...

Accuracy and range is almost entirely determined by the barrel length and rifling. Penetration isn't - certain high powered modern pistols have greater penetration power than a rifle despite the difference in barrel length. The biggest factors to penetration are the power of the charge and the size, shape and material of the bullet. In early firearms, the bullet shape was altering quite frequently, depending on the beliefs of the time. Similarly, in order to get higher penetration gunners would overload the powder in the gun (up to half of the normal charge, though this was a dangerous practice).
The whole purpose of the early firearms was not to penetrate armour though - it didn't need to. The guns could fire anything up to a fist sized rock or bullet at high (relatively) velocity - the bullet acted more like a blunt weapon than a piercing one.

A common misconception I saw during the arguements of the exclusion of Lorcia Segmenta (Segments of plate used by the romans - their typical look we ascribe to them) was that it was somehow superior to the mail hauberks used. Now, I believe this was refuted, but I am curious to see the


Another misconception to add is the weight of plate armor - most figure it is very heavy
Another would be that Muslim's and anyone of the near east have systematicall used curved weapons from the start of warfare until the rise of the automatic rifle - I ca't answer the first or second, though I know either are false, but it would be good to deal with.

And one I'd ask about myself is - just how truly effective could the couched lance's charge be considered? I've heard of it's devistating power but the pragmatic in me thinks " so they can have a really strong charge, and have the lance break after the first, second, or third thrust if not the first. I've heard of a historian saying the Sassanid Horsemen could lance through two roman soldiers, and this was in an era without stirrups - So why is the european knightly charge such a 'OMG WTF WERE DOOMED!' thing?" I know I'm wrong, just that's my thinking.