The official off topic thread.

[Spawn Of Achilles]

Oh yeah, and I would also like to point out. After I googled it, the push of pike is when you are between the legs of a girl and you then...

Not to be confused with a Greek shoving match.  Something just tells me not to Google that one...

Well there is also the Spartan one, which involves being behind a guy, which that guy is behind your wife.... But The spartans were just wierd with all that wife sharing stuff.

Weird? I'd call that a slow Saturday 

 

[jamoecw]

ebin my point was that you shouldn't have felt stupid for thinking that sometimes it is better to drop your spear and grab your backup weapon.

the argument about how good his push of pike reference is my way of showing that he isn't that great of an encyclopedia, so if it appears that he scoffs at something you say then maybe he might not be more right than you.

here's an example of loss of cohesion, and an example of when to drop your spear and grab your sword: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pydna

notice that the macedonians lost cohesion and drew their swords, not to mention that the romans were trying to get under their pikes.

as for the heavy infantry bit, a phalanx is effectively super heavy infantry formation from the front, as they have a wall of spears between them and their foe.  even missles don't get through very well.

as for looking up greek shoving matches, this came up first when i googled did it:http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/archive/index.php/t-98104.html

as for roman medicine being as good as 'medieval' medicine:  http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-medicine.php
they sterilized their tools, they used a type of african ant that had a lock jaw for sutures, similar to modern stapling, they fixed cataracts, etc.

why did i use gunshot wounds?  because they are common enough today to have decent info on them.  why didn't you take into account hacking off body parts in yours?  because that doesn't happen enough i'd bet.  it did happen though so in order to gain an 'overall damage potential and lethality' that happened on the battlefield from one soldier to another (not counting someone being pushed off of a wall and falling on a pike), you have beheading (or at least close enough to 'instant kill') against shoving a pike into someone's eye (again an 'instant kill')

good examples of what cutting can do in relation to bludgeoning: http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/archsci/depart/resgrp/towton/
notice the fractures from the axe head entries.

all in all what is more lethal is a circular argument, to put it into a nutshell they are all lethal.

the bit about japan not being a good example of bludgeoning was more of an agreement statement of your "i don't know statement"  then going in to a better synopsis of bludgeoning weaponry.

P.S.  don't worry about the whole abrasive thing, you aren't normally abrasive.  in short if i feel you coming off as abrasive then either you had a bad day, or i had a bad day.  in the end you'll have to resort to name calling and stupid stuff like that before i think less of you, after all so far you have been rather intelligent in the debate.  i generally post with walls of text, and when someone gets a response by being abrasive i tend not to space out my post like i just did.  sorry about the blunt weapon post not being spaced out, i was tired and had a bad day.

 

[SwissHalberdier]

I never said I was an encyclopedia.  Somebody else made that comment, and my reply was a light jab that, were I an encyclopedia, I would be a relatively short one.  I'm not following your reasoning at the beginning of your post.

In the end, it all sort of is a circular argument, since neither spears nor pikes are used anymore.  I guess you could test it on a friend, but they probably wouldn't want to play with you anymore. I did address hacked off limbs though, I believe, in one of my earlier posts... something along the lines of "cutting blows can be more crippling if applied to a limb, where thrusts are more likely to be fatal", I don't have it in front of me so I don't know what I said exactly.  I also didn't call the fellow in question stupid, I did tell him a few times that he didn't need to feel that way as he himself had said he felt stupid repeatedly (a notion of his which, in my opinion, was completely unwarranted).  If not, I had intended to, and I erred in my judgment thinking it was done already.

Regarding the heavy infantry bit, I am well aware of what a phalanx is.  What you said was that the medieval formations weren't "equipped to be makeshift heavy swordsmen", which they were not... But neither were the phalanxes of the time depicted in this modification, so I fail to grasp what you're saying (as you seem to be contrasting them in this sentence).  Their shields were tiny and strapped to their bodies to allow both hands to firmly grasp the sarissa, essentially making it useless in close combat.  So I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Anyway... The phalanx was destroyed at Pydna because cohesion was lost, so I guess we're in agreement?  I didn't say it never happened, I said it was "not necessarily" what they were taught they should do.  And that usually, when it did happen, the phalanx was collectively, for lack of a more fitting word, "****ed".  History shows this time and time again.

I will concede, of course, that the Hellenes did have a one up on medical technology.  However, Roman medicine did not die out.  Works by such great physicians as Hippocrates and Galen were still being studied extensively.  I should perhaps have worded that better.

Gunshot wounds btw are altogether different and work rather differently from stab wounds, cut wounds, etc.  It still doesn't add anything to the discussion, I think.

Sorry for jumping from topic to topic there, and not in any particular order... It's 5:30 and I just woke up, so my mind is all over the place.  I'll probably go through this post and clean it up when I have more time.  Anyway, thanks for your patience thus far.  Also, I understood your post about blunt weapons just fine, I was just confused by the bit about Japan as it seemed to be a rebuttal of some sort.  Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[Aticus]

Spoiler

I never said I was an encyclopedia.  Somebody else made that comment, and my reply was a light jab that, were I an encyclopedia, I would be a relatively short one.  I'm not following your reasoning at the beginning of your post.

He is correct, I said he was an encyclopedia.

 

[Ebin]

Well I'll say this. I have respect for Swiss because, if he would have said something wrong about Politics, I would have done the very same. I would like to make a statement to be corrected by swiss if it is wrong. But I believe that Thrusts are more effective to the body as swings are more effective against limbs.

 

[CCDK]

very interesting chat you are having there and I am happy i can follow it in the off-topic. Im not sure I want to pick sides in the skirmish since I have not really made my mind up what the problem is as such - but it does beat arguing about that Fox womans latest dress or whatever.

by all means continue and ill get the popcorn and lager 

oh just one little thing I bumped into while looking up cancer - I had the reminder while you mentioned medicine - there is a lot of debate about the general knowledge in the field at the time with the greeks and romans - while there are the few who wrote ths and that and stick out so to speak the GENERAL knowledge is questionable - that issue came fresh to mind when i read that somebody received a nobel prize for discovering that cancer of the stomach is caused by a worm - and mark you that was i 1926.......makes you think about how fragile a concept knowledge really is and how it constantly is up for review..

Well i have to get to bed

carry on 

 

[jamoecw]

I meant to imply leveling up weapons proficiency, yes.  The cinematics, though... Eh.  I don't think so.  I do agree that polearms should deal more damage, though.  Stab wounds were, after all, more deadly than cuts according to Vegetius (De Re Militari, liber I - http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/vegetius/dere03.php).  The leverage gained by the spear, coupled with the tendency of hard woods to try to straighten themselves (thus releasing a massive amount of energy into the tip of the spear upon entry in the case of longer spears such as the sarissa) made them a very powerful weapon.

But in close range? From what I can recall, most Phalanxes, when brought down to lower numbers or not placed in deep formations. Were taught to drop their spears and engage with swords if the enemy got past the spears... I might just be bsing again, but I swear I saw that somewhere.

EDIT: Yeah the above might be offtopic... But anyways, yeah I always imagined a stab being much more effective than a slash. I mean... What was it, like a little less than an inch penetration was more than likely lethal?

I think you're missing the point.  He said to up the damage on the spears to compensate for their worthlessness at close range.  Not to up the damage on the spears at close range.

Also, phalangites weren't necessarily taught to just drop their spears if the enemy got past them.  Look up "push of pike".  Once the cohesion of the unit is lost, and the formation is put into disarray, the phalanx fails.

Damn? Why can't I type in this part of the forum without losing the point of the argument?...

Oh well... I'm going to try this one more time... Yeah I misunderstood the reason for upping the stats. I thought it was so that the spear could do damage at close range. Not that it could do more when it is in it's effective range. My bad...

Oh but I looked up push of pike and didn't find anything detailed at all. But, from what I think I'm getting at it, this is where the solders in the 2nd and 3rd lines or such, put up the pikes in between the gaps of the frontline solders to push back the enemy's who get too close?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_of_pike

Damn.. And I had read that once and didn't understand it lol... I just read it again and realized what it said... I feel stupid now 

how quickly does it switch?  at the speed of changing weapons?  or instantly?

[edit] oh yeah, and mr. peanut shouldn't feel so stupid, the push of pike wasn't generally done with greek phalanxes.  the push of pikes came about do to wars between groups that favored pike formations over shield and spear formations.  also the push of pikes was about dealing with non pike troops that got past the pikes, so if a bunch of swordsmen managed to get past the pikes the pike men would have some trouble dealing with the swordsmen unless the front row dropped their pikes and drew their swords.

as for the damage between stabs and cuts, it has everything to do with the medical technology at hand.  in the early dark ages when there wasn't any medical technology to speak of, cuts were deadlier than stabs (not to say both weren't quite deadly), while during the height of roman power stabs were deadlier than cuts.  antibiotic ointment, the ability to cleanly close a wound, and clotting agents combats most of the danger from cuts.  oral antibiotics, surgical sutures (suturing organs and such), and basic surgical ability (ability to cut someone open and work on them without killing them in the process) combats most danger from stabs.

true shield bashing would also help with the getting too close thing.[/edit]

The point of referencing push of pike is to use an extreme to more clearly illustrate how ****ed a massed pike formation is if it breaks ranks.  You're missing the point.

Also, stab wounds are still deadlier than cut wounds today.

Cuts are generally aimed at four key places.  The head, the body, the wrists and the legs.  A cut to the wrists affords one the ability to remove the opponent's ability to attack, but is also easiest to parry as the hand is obviously closest to the thing you're trying to get around... the weapon.  The cut to the head is considered by many to offer the greatest advantage, as it offers the best reach.  A cut to the body can both remove the opponent's ability to attack (by severing the clavicle, sternum and/or ribs), but offers less reach and cause serious internal damage (a couple inches would be sufficient to cut the heart, lungs, etc).  In the case of a baseball bat sort of swing, it also requires the least skill, but it does require a fairly hefty weapon to be effective (in other words, neither a gladius nor a knife).  A cut to the legs offers the least reach, but it completely destroys your opponent's ability to flee or advance.  All of these, however, can be easily overturned by armor.  This is why the spear has been king of the battlefield from time immemorial.

A thrust has all of these advantages, with fewer weaknesses.  You are afforded the control of keeping the blade directly in front of you, the reach is at least equal to cutting straight down and the ease of doing it is the same as your average dumbass baseball bat swing.  It is harder to defend against a thrust because it's also harder to see it coming.  The thrust is simple, it occupies the wound channel until withdrawn, and can easily collapse a lung if said lung is punctured.  Also, thrusts are more efficient for getting through gaps in armor, as the force is concentrated over a much smaller area.  Think of it this way, if you laid on a bed of nails, they wouldn't pierce you.  If you laid on a single nail... Well, you'd be out of luck.  You can put your weight behind a thrust and really pierce weaker armor if you know what you're doing (though, probably at the expense of your blade, since it would take a while to withdraw).  It can also be used to create gaping wounds by various methods of twisting or circling the blade (the so-called "comma cut", for example), which are almost impossible to close as they leave a ragged and generally ****ed up looking wound.

In essence, where cuts can easily be overturned with armor, and also require some practice to do efficiently without ruining your weapon, the thrust excels in both cases.  It also can leave a far more gruesome wound that, while not as crippling as say a cut to a tendon or a hack to one's limbs, has much more capacity to damage internal organs.  You are far more likely to die from a ripped up internal organ than you are from bleeding out, both today and back then.

so i said that ebin shouldn't feel stupid since he was correct in that hoplites were in fact fat trained to drop their spears and become makeshift heavy swordsmen, pikemen on the other hand became at best medium swordsmen when they did this and it was rarer due to relative ineffectiveness compared to reforming.  so pikemen only did this as a last resort, and may not have even been trained to fight with their sword.

which is why i said that your example wasn't that good, it is not period specific and since he was under the impression that phalanxes were taught to drop their sword, which was true for hoplite phalanxes, and not so much for pike phalanxes.  you are very smart and didn't pick up on the broad to narrow context of the statement (ebin said phalanx while you said phalangites, but refered to pikemen or sarissaphoros, and a lot of people use phalangites instead of sarissaphoros), his reference pointed to hoplites and you used pikemen in your example.

so if you are pretty darn smart, then ebin having made the same mistake as you has nothing to feel stupid about.  unless he thinks you are stupid, at which point i'd have to disagree with him.

as for cutting vs. stabbing it is entirely video game represented based on a HP model, and without critical hits.  thus you are inflicting flesh wounds until one of you collapses.

armor penetration is a modifier of how effective armor is, and while more damage does more against armored targets, armor penetration is what is used for the ability to penetrate armor.

hence the deadlier flesh wound angle of the argument instead of looking at flesh wounds vs. 'critical hits'

yes we are in agreement on when a phalanx losses cohesion it is no longer a phalanx (usually ****ed, but then against marathon is a good example of losing cohesion not mattering).

as for roman medicine, the legions had surgeons with them that improved on greek medicine.  as the romans relied on mercenaries there was less surgeons, until there was too few legions for them to have surgeons, at which point the medicine was the same stuff as european medieval medicine.

gunshot wounds don't really add anything relevant.  i had said it due to the wounds being a penetration wound that goes through the body, like an impalement, and the kinetic energy released would be sorta like the twisting of a blade.  it does have a logic, but it is too poor of an example to be worth anything.

as for the encyclopedia, i never said you said you were.  as the posts came, it was something to the effect of aticus commenting on how you knew a great deal, and then ebin starts feeling that something that you say is somehow more right than what he says.  i'm just saying that you are smart, but infallible or definitive, and that people shouldn't be intimidated into thinking they don't know things.  you never really went along with the encyclopedia thing, so it isn't your fault.

if there is an order let me know and i'll start trying to keep stuff in order.

ccdk, thanks that was pretty interesting.  a lot of people use that whole 'a bee can't fly' thing to show how science sometimes uses obviously flawed theories, i don't think that the guy that explained why the aerodynamic theories at the time didn't work for bees won anything, so the worm thing is probably a better example.

 

[Ebin]

Spoiler: Yep I quoted it all to say something irrelevant

I meant to imply leveling up weapons proficiency, yes.  The cinematics, though... Eh.  I don't think so.  I do agree that polearms should deal more damage, though.  Stab wounds were, after all, more deadly than cuts according to Vegetius (De Re Militari, liber I - http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/vegetius/dere03.php).  The leverage gained by the spear, coupled with the tendency of hard woods to try to straighten themselves (thus releasing a massive amount of energy into the tip of the spear upon entry in the case of longer spears such as the sarissa) made them a very powerful weapon.

But in close range? From what I can recall, most Phalanxes, when brought down to lower numbers or not placed in deep formations. Were taught to drop their spears and engage with swords if the enemy got past the spears... I might just be bsing again, but I swear I saw that somewhere.

EDIT: Yeah the above might be offtopic... But anyways, yeah I always imagined a stab being much more effective than a slash. I mean... What was it, like a little less than an inch penetration was more than likely lethal?

I think you're missing the point.  He said to up the damage on the spears to compensate for their worthlessness at close range.  Not to up the damage on the spears at close range.

Also, phalangites weren't necessarily taught to just drop their spears if the enemy got past them.  Look up "push of pike".  Once the cohesion of the unit is lost, and the formation is put into disarray, the phalanx fails.

Damn? Why can't I type in this part of the forum without losing the point of the argument?...

Oh well... I'm going to try this one more time... Yeah I misunderstood the reason for upping the stats. I thought it was so that the spear could do damage at close range. Not that it could do more when it is in it's effective range. My bad...

Oh but I looked up push of pike and didn't find anything detailed at all. But, from what I think I'm getting at it, this is where the solders in the 2nd and 3rd lines or such, put up the pikes in between the gaps of the frontline solders to push back the enemy's who get too close?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_of_pike

Damn.. And I had read that once and didn't understand it lol... I just read it again and realized what it said... I feel stupid now 

how quickly does it switch?  at the speed of changing weapons?  or instantly?

[edit] oh yeah, and mr. peanut shouldn't feel so stupid, the push of pike wasn't generally done with greek phalanxes.  the push of pikes came about do to wars between groups that favored pike formations over shield and spear formations.  also the push of pikes was about dealing with non pike troops that got past the pikes, so if a bunch of swordsmen managed to get past the pikes the pike men would have some trouble dealing with the swordsmen unless the front row dropped their pikes and drew their swords.

as for the damage between stabs and cuts, it has everything to do with the medical technology at hand.  in the early dark ages when there wasn't any medical technology to speak of, cuts were deadlier than stabs (not to say both weren't quite deadly), while during the height of roman power stabs were deadlier than cuts.  antibiotic ointment, the ability to cleanly close a wound, and clotting agents combats most of the danger from cuts.  oral antibiotics, surgical sutures (suturing organs and such), and basic surgical ability (ability to cut someone open and work on them without killing them in the process) combats most danger from stabs.

true shield bashing would also help with the getting too close thing.[/edit]

The point of referencing push of pike is to use an extreme to more clearly illustrate how ****ed a massed pike formation is if it breaks ranks.  You're missing the point.

Also, stab wounds are still deadlier than cut wounds today.

Cuts are generally aimed at four key places.  The head, the body, the wrists and the legs.  A cut to the wrists affords one the ability to remove the opponent's ability to attack, but is also easiest to parry as the hand is obviously closest to the thing you're trying to get around... the weapon.  The cut to the head is considered by many to offer the greatest advantage, as it offers the best reach.  A cut to the body can both remove the opponent's ability to attack (by severing the clavicle, sternum and/or ribs), but offers less reach and cause serious internal damage (a couple inches would be sufficient to cut the heart, lungs, etc).  In the case of a baseball bat sort of swing, it also requires the least skill, but it does require a fairly hefty weapon to be effective (in other words, neither a gladius nor a knife).  A cut to the legs offers the least reach, but it completely destroys your opponent's ability to flee or advance.  All of these, however, can be easily overturned by armor.  This is why the spear has been king of the battlefield from time immemorial.

A thrust has all of these advantages, with fewer weaknesses.  You are afforded the control of keeping the blade directly in front of you, the reach is at least equal to cutting straight down and the ease of doing it is the same as your average dumbass baseball bat swing.  It is harder to defend against a thrust because it's also harder to see it coming.  The thrust is simple, it occupies the wound channel until withdrawn, and can easily collapse a lung if said lung is punctured.  Also, thrusts are more efficient for getting through gaps in armor, as the force is concentrated over a much smaller area.  Think of it this way, if you laid on a bed of nails, they wouldn't pierce you.  If you laid on a single nail... Well, you'd be out of luck.  You can put your weight behind a thrust and really pierce weaker armor if you know what you're doing (though, probably at the expense of your blade, since it would take a while to withdraw).  It can also be used to create gaping wounds by various methods of twisting or circling the blade (the so-called "comma cut", for example), which are almost impossible to close as they leave a ragged and generally ****ed up looking wound.

In essence, where cuts can easily be overturned with armor, and also require some practice to do efficiently without ruining your weapon, the thrust excels in both cases.  It also can leave a far more gruesome wound that, while not as crippling as say a cut to a tendon or a hack to one's limbs, has much more capacity to damage internal organs.  You are far more likely to die from a ripped up internal organ than you are from bleeding out, both today and back then.

so i said that ebin shouldn't feel stupid since he was correct in that hoplites were in fact fat trained to drop their spears and become makeshift heavy swordsmen, pikemen on the other hand became at best medium swordsmen when they did this and it was rarer due to relative ineffectiveness compared to reforming.  so pikemen only did this as a last resort, and may not have even been trained to fight with their sword.

which is why i said that your example wasn't that good, it is not period specific and since he was under the impression that phalanxes were taught to drop their sword, which was true for hoplite phalanxes, and not so much for pike phalanxes.  you are very smart and didn't pick up on the broad to narrow context of the statement (ebin said phalanx while you said phalangites, but refered to pikemen or sarissaphoros, and a lot of people use phalangites instead of sarissaphoros), his reference pointed to hoplites and you used pikemen in your example.

so if you are pretty darn smart, then ebin having made the same mistake as you has nothing to feel stupid about.  unless he thinks you are stupid, at which point i'd have to disagree with him.

as for cutting vs. stabbing it is entirely video game represented based on a HP model, and without critical hits.  thus you are inflicting flesh wounds until one of you collapses.

armor penetration is a modifier of how effective armor is, and while more damage does more against armored targets, armor penetration is what is used for the ability to penetrate armor.

hence the deadlier flesh wound angle of the argument instead of looking at flesh wounds vs. 'critical hits'

yes we are in agreement on when a phalanx losses cohesion it is no longer a phalanx (usually ****ed, but then against marathon is a good example of losing cohesion not mattering).

as for roman medicine, the legions had surgeons with them that improved on greek medicine.  as the romans relied on mercenaries there was less surgeons, until there was too few legions for them to have surgeons, at which point the medicine was the same stuff as european medieval medicine.

gunshot wounds don't really add anything relevant.  i had said it due to the wounds being a penetration wound that goes through the body, like an impalement, and the kinetic energy released would be sorta like the twisting of a blade.  it does have a logic, but it is too poor of an example to be worth anything.

as for the encyclopedia, i never said you said you were.  as the posts came, it was something to the effect of aticus commenting on how you knew a great deal, and then ebin starts feeling that something that you say is somehow more right than what he says.  i'm just saying that you are smart, but infallible or definitive, and that people shouldn't be intimidated into thinking they don't know things.  you never really went along with the encyclopedia thing, so it isn't your fault.

if there is an order let me know and i'll start trying to keep stuff in order.

ccdk, thanks that was pretty interesting.  a lot of people use that whole 'a bee can't fly' thing to show how science sometimes uses obviously flawed theories, i don't think that the guy that explained why the aerodynamic theories at the time didn't work for bees won anything, so the worm thing is probably a better example.

So how about that airline food?

 

[SwissHalberdier]

Hah don't mind the order bit, I usually write my reply addressing points stated by the previous poster in their correct order.  A bit of a compulsion of mine.

I agree with you, for the most part.

Btw, if by airline food you mean peanuts... Peanuts ftw!

Spoiler

 

[Ebin]

I know right? And you can serve them many different was! But yes, Airline food being peanuts, which are awesome!

Spoiler

Very Unoriginal, I know

 

[jamoecw]

you do know that sometimes they serve other types of nuts if they are going with a theme (like macadamia nuts for hawii sometimes).  personally i like my peanuts butterd or dark chocolate dipped.  airline peanuts are alright though, but i like the other nuts they serve better.  now those peanuts they used to use in the zoos and for cheap humanitarian aid (you know military grade peanuts) are pretty good.

 

[Beanchubbs]

Personally I prefer roasted nuts glazed with the cinnamon nut glaze stuff. Those are good.

 

[Spawn Of Achilles]

As long as we're on the subject of nuts: Pistachios.
Also:

Spoiler

 

[Maximus183]

To quote McAuliffe : Nuts!

 

[Ebin]

Speaking of nuts, I think one of mine is bigger than the other.

 

[SwissHalberdier]

you know, it's been several days since ealabor's posted anything.  I wonder what he's up to...

 

[Teledan]

Finishing Hegemony maybe...

 

[jamoecw]

Speaking of nuts, I think one of mine is bigger than the other.

well that is easily solved.  go out and get some more.  then pair up similar sized nuts.  once you have paired them all up find out if there are any two that match exactly, if not keep trying.  and as a final step eat those that are not the matching pair.  this will also help you get some protein in your diet, as milk doesn't contain as much as people think it does.

 

[Spawn Of Achilles]

Well.... that's gay 

And your picture is a Spartan. Which is gay along with some wife-swapping.

We all know Gerard Butler was 100% Spartan, and he's straight as an arrow. There is scientific proof that every single member of his family is descended from Spartans, and his 36x-Great Grandfather was indeed Leonidas. Clearly the perfect factual depiction of the Battle of Thermopylae was represented in incredibly accurate detail of the movie "300" thanks to the stories passed down by Butler's ancestors, who were.... Wait for it...

Spoiler

Yep, Spartan.

My point is, Spartans are straight, just watch "300", and that will prove my point. Because its all true. Fact.

 

[CCDK]

strangely i have not even been able to watch the damned movie until the end (300 that is) the most i could take was 45 minutes or so - have tried 4 or 5 times but i always end up muttering ...oh blow it out your ear and go hang...and shut it down