the dwarven army in BFME 2 was even more impressive
Boar chariots!
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
(...)
As cool and as faithful as the movies were, they still played around a lot and not all of it was good. (still boycotting the Hobbit pt. 2 and 3 to this day)
Qapla!
You're missing out, though. Coolest Dwarven army ever shown on screen The "not true to the source" argument doesn't count in my book (ha!) since none of the movies were actually faithful (I'm wondering why you'd say that). Middle Earth doesn't even know the crossbow, not to speak of high medieval armour or hulking Uruk Hai. The movieverse and the bookverse are just two separate entities, like the Marvel CU and the ... uh... CU (CBU?) Aside fromt he fact that Dwarves were never explored by Tolkien to the extend of recreating an actual functioning army from it. And Ibex cavalry - could it be more awesome? Yeah, it could - hog mounts
Book to movie translations are seldom as faithful as was TLOTR effort. The first Hobbit movie just went to far for me. That said, maybe I'll borrow 2+3 from someone and make absolutely certain they kept going to far after all.
My positions starting out are, #1 that magic is or isn't there for both sides, #2 that either everyone gets their Gandalfs and Shelobs, or nobody does, #3 is that Rome doesn't show up to the fight with no intel, and that there has been a prior history of Romes involvement in the war. That is a start.
This is much the same as my position.
I don't think that "isn't there" is a viable option as it'd leave out too much of the stuff Mordor has. Thus why I think a more mythological approach to Rome is best.
And yeah, Rome's real-world military tactics were based on adapting to the tactics used by their enemies. So they wouldn't simply use the same tactics against Warg riders as they would against other cavalry.
My positions starting out are, #1 that magic is or isn't there for both sides, #2 that either everyone gets their Gandalfs and Shelobs, or nobody does, #3 is that Rome doesn't show up to the fight with no intel, and that there has been a prior history of Romes involvement in the war. That is a start.
This is much the same as my position.
I don't think that "isn't there" is a viable option as it'd leave out too much of the stuff Mordor has. Thus why I think a more mythological approach to Rome is best.
And yeah, Rome's real-world military tactics were based on adapting to the tactics used by their enemies. So they wouldn't simply use the same tactics against Warg riders as they would against other cavalry.
Best example is the Roman army, post Gallic sack of Rome.
Before the Romans met the Gauls, they fought in a Greek style hoplite phalanx with the spear and shields as their primary weapons. When they first met the Gauls, the Gauls cut to that phalanx to pieces with their wild charges and heavy hitting warriors with two handed swords. These events led to the Polybian reforms which introduced the manipular legion. The manipular legion later evolved into the classic late republic/early empire marian legion
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
My positions starting out are, #1 that magic is or isn't there for both sides, #2 that either everyone gets their Gandalfs and Shelobs, or nobody does, #3 is that Rome doesn't show up to the fight with no intel, and that there has been a prior history of Romes involvement in the war. That is a start.
This is much the same as my position.
I don't think that "isn't there" is a viable option as it'd leave out too much of the stuff Mordor has. Thus why I think a more mythological approach to Rome is best.
And yeah, Rome's real-world military tactics were based on adapting to the tactics used by their enemies. So they wouldn't simply use the same tactics against Warg riders as they would against other cavalry.
Best example is the Roman army, post Gallic sack of Rome.
Before the Romans met the Gauls, they fought in a Greek style hoplite phalanx with the spear and shields as their primary weapons. When they first met the Gauls, the Gauls cut to that phalanx to pieces with their wild charges and heavy hitting warriors with two handed swords. These events led to the Polybian reforms which introduced the manipular legion. The manipular legion later evolved into the classic late republic/early empire marian legion
The Marian Legion may well have been the best pre-gunpowder infantry in the worlds history. That is the time period I would go with. I'd go with markhawkman on taking the mythological approach. I'd be wondering if that would mean the undead helpers from the paths of the dead would be manes?
Qapla! And Happy Holiday for those who have one at the moment.
I've been studying the Roman army for 15 years, ancient and classical military history is a hobby of mine.
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
My positions starting out are, #1 that magic is or isn't there for both sides, #2 that either everyone gets their Gandalfs and Shelobs, or nobody does, #3 is that Rome doesn't show up to the fight with no intel, and that there has been a prior history of Romes involvement in the war. That is a start.
This is much the same as my position.
I don't think that "isn't there" is a viable option as it'd leave out too much of the stuff Mordor has. Thus why I think a more mythological approach to Rome is best.
And yeah, Rome's real-world military tactics were based on adapting to the tactics used by their enemies. So they wouldn't simply use the same tactics against Warg riders as they would against other cavalry.
Best example is the Roman army, post Gallic sack of Rome.
Before the Romans met the Gauls, they fought in a Greek style hoplite phalanx with the spear and shields as their primary weapons. When they first met the Gauls, the Gauls cut to that phalanx to pieces with their wild charges and heavy hitting warriors with two handed swords. These events led to the Polybian reforms which introduced the manipular legion. The manipular legion later evolved into the classic late republic/early empire marian legion
I'd be wondering if that would mean the undead helpers from the paths of the dead would be manes?
I think it's worth noting that in the book the dead did not take part in the battle of the Pelennor fields, they helped Aragorn take the ships he used to go to the battle, but were then freed. It was a large group of rangers that he took with him, which is the only change Peter Jackson made that I really, really don't like, made the whole battle anti-climactic imho
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
My positions starting out are, #1 that magic is or isn't there for both sides, #2 that either everyone gets their Gandalfs and Shelobs, or nobody does, #3 is that Rome doesn't show up to the fight with no intel, and that there has been a prior history of Romes involvement in the war. That is a start.
This is much the same as my position.
I don't think that "isn't there" is a viable option as it'd leave out too much of the stuff Mordor has. Thus why I think a more mythological approach to Rome is best.
And yeah, Rome's real-world military tactics were based on adapting to the tactics used by their enemies. So they wouldn't simply use the same tactics against Warg riders as they would against other cavalry.
Best example is the Roman army, post Gallic sack of Rome.
Before the Romans met the Gauls, they fought in a Greek style hoplite phalanx with the spear and shields as their primary weapons. When they first met the Gauls, the Gauls cut to that phalanx to pieces with their wild charges and heavy hitting warriors with two handed swords. These events led to the Polybian reforms which introduced the manipular legion. The manipular legion later evolved into the classic late republic/early empire marian legion
I'd be wondering if that would mean the undead helpers from the paths of the dead would be manes?
I think it's worth noting that in the book the dead did not take part in the battle of the Pelennor fields, they helped Aragorn take the ships he used to go to the battle, but were then freed. It was a large group of rangers that he took with him, which is the only change Peter Jackson made that I really, really don't like, made the whole battle anti-climactic imho
Yeah, I thought that was questionable also. Rohan did the heavy lifting outside the walls at the beginning, and Aragorn and his rangers didn't need to be overshadowed like they were. There were some troops gathered from the outlying provinces, as he sailed along, though I can't recall the details at this time.
I liked the way it worked with the debt repayment thing. It really gave you a reason to think they had earned their release.
Actually, I did like the feel of that. Maybe I'm being to hard on the Hobbit films. Movies run all over the map when adapting from books. So yeah, I will check them out now.
Actually, I did like the feel of that. Maybe I'm being to hard on the Hobbit films. Movies run all over the map when adapting from books. So yeah, I will check them out now.
Qapla'!
You simply have to accept that the Hobbit movies, albeit being a "prequel" to Lord of the Rings, connect the two stories which originally wasn't the case. Of course the Hobbit takes place in the same universe and all, but the Hobbit was meant to be independent and was written ahead of LOTR - with the movies it's the other way around and the Jackson Hobbit movies connect things like the one ring, the council, sauron all things that didn't originally exist in the hobbit. Plus, the visuals are very much made up but fit the movieverse even when contradicting literal descriptions.
Just take it as movies being movies and books being books, don't judge one because of the other.
EDIT: It's a bit like the situation with the new Star Trek movies in the alternate reality. Of course people have expectations but they shouldn't judge one on basis of the other as that's simply unrealistic. You can come to the conclusion of liking one better than the other of course for a number of reasons but you don't have to mix them up
Post edited by angrytarg on
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
the battle of helm's deep (and it IS helm's deep, not that hornburg nonsense) did NOT involve mordor in any way; isengard was a completely separate faction altogether - unlike the easterlings and southrons which were blended into mordor's army
I was referring to the film version so it's the fortress itself that's under siege and there's no battles in the valley itself except for a brief cavalry charge followed by the Orcs retreating.
I gave that example, despite being aware of the stipulation of 'Mordor's armies' as there were Mordor Orcs that worked with Saruman initially but mainly to show an example of Orcs using tactics.
Uruk Hai.
Saruman's were the most elite version having the most uniform and quality gear, and being better trained, and lead.
I'd call them the best of the worst of the worst.
Still if any orcs were capable of any real discipline, it would be those.
As cool and as faithful as the movies were, they still played around a lot and not all of it was good. (still boycotting the Hobbit pt. 2 and 3 to this day)
Qapla!
In the films sure. But in the books, they're nothing more than imitations of the Uruks of Mordor.
But even in the films, the Siege of Gondor shows some very impressive tactical planning and formations from Gothmog's orcs, again, so does the Siege of Erebor with GCI Orc's armies somehow managing to outdo Mordor's finest.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Hast thou not gone against sincerity
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
Comments
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Book to movie translations are seldom as faithful as was TLOTR effort. The first Hobbit movie just went to far for me. That said, maybe I'll borrow 2+3 from someone and make absolutely certain they kept going to far after all.
Warhammer I think has 'hog mounts',
Qapla'!
I don't think that "isn't there" is a viable option as it'd leave out too much of the stuff Mordor has. Thus why I think a more mythological approach to Rome is best.
And yeah, Rome's real-world military tactics were based on adapting to the tactics used by their enemies. So they wouldn't simply use the same tactics against Warg riders as they would against other cavalry.
My character Tsin'xing
Best example is the Roman army, post Gallic sack of Rome.
Before the Romans met the Gauls, they fought in a Greek style hoplite phalanx with the spear and shields as their primary weapons. When they first met the Gauls, the Gauls cut to that phalanx to pieces with their wild charges and heavy hitting warriors with two handed swords. These events led to the Polybian reforms which introduced the manipular legion. The manipular legion later evolved into the classic late republic/early empire marian legion
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
The Marian Legion may well have been the best pre-gunpowder infantry in the worlds history. That is the time period I would go with. I'd go with markhawkman on taking the mythological approach. I'd be wondering if that would mean the undead helpers from the paths of the dead would be manes?
Qapla! And Happy Holiday for those who have one at the moment.
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
*Tips hat to you*
Qapla'!
I think it's worth noting that in the book the dead did not take part in the battle of the Pelennor fields, they helped Aragorn take the ships he used to go to the battle, but were then freed. It was a large group of rangers that he took with him, which is the only change Peter Jackson made that I really, really don't like, made the whole battle anti-climactic imho
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Yeah, I thought that was questionable also. Rohan did the heavy lifting outside the walls at the beginning, and Aragorn and his rangers didn't need to be overshadowed like they were. There were some troops gathered from the outlying provinces, as he sailed along, though I can't recall the details at this time.
Qapla'!
My character Tsin'xing
Actually, I did like the feel of that. Maybe I'm being to hard on the Hobbit films. Movies run all over the map when adapting from books. So yeah, I will check them out now.
Qapla'!
You simply have to accept that the Hobbit movies, albeit being a "prequel" to Lord of the Rings, connect the two stories which originally wasn't the case. Of course the Hobbit takes place in the same universe and all, but the Hobbit was meant to be independent and was written ahead of LOTR - with the movies it's the other way around and the Jackson Hobbit movies connect things like the one ring, the council, sauron all things that didn't originally exist in the hobbit. Plus, the visuals are very much made up but fit the movieverse even when contradicting literal descriptions.
Just take it as movies being movies and books being books, don't judge one because of the other.
EDIT: It's a bit like the situation with the new Star Trek movies in the alternate reality. Of course people have expectations but they shouldn't judge one on basis of the other as that's simply unrealistic. You can come to the conclusion of liking one better than the other of course for a number of reasons but you don't have to mix them up
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
In the films sure. But in the books, they're nothing more than imitations of the Uruks of Mordor.
But even in the films, the Siege of Gondor shows some very impressive tactical planning and formations from Gothmog's orcs, again, so does the Siege of Erebor with GCI Orc's armies somehow managing to outdo Mordor's finest.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful