Because this forum isn't nerdy enough.
+++++++++++++++
By "traditional fantasy horde" I mean the army of big, dumb and mean monsters that are the muscle of the big bad in Fantasy novels. Whether they're Uruk Hai, Minotaurs, Trollocs, Koloss or what have you, you know 'em when you see them.
Much stronger, faster and tougher then humans, they rely on melee combat. When met in open combat humans have to resort to innovative tactics to win. They typically draw the horde into a trap by harassing them with cavalry and then pin them down with infantry who keep the horde at a distance with pikes or other polearms as archers shower them with arrows while the cavalry delivers the coup de grace.
That's how it works when humans with medieval technology are fighting, but what about more advanced civilizations? One assumes the more advanced the better, but I don't think that's necessarily so. What would work better against a human army wouldn't necessarily work better against an inhuman one.
I was specifically thinking of the armies of line infantry that replaced the pike and shot formations at the turn of the 18th century. A brigade of 18th century line infantry has much heavier firepower then a Spanish Tercio, but it's not enough to stop a determined infantry charge. The firepower to do that reliably wouldn't become available until the advent of the rifle musket in the mid-19th century. A fantasy horde will just wade through the fire, take their losses in stride and then slam into the line and hack the soldiers to bits. Muskets with bayonets just aren't going to enough to stop them.
Wouldn't a 17th century pike and shot army be better equipped to combat a fantasy horde? The pikes would prevent the army from being immediately overrun, while the musketeers continue to fire unharassed and the cavalry does its thing.
What do you guys think?
I do not accept the premise of your silly question here.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft3.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcRdIbZ4S8cFAOAd9gXeFXkevLsYbX2Vktp1005jilYjCeef6zC-Me-S4iGc&hash=a0d6d87d2279ac356c5501ffee97d797a1ca6137)
You really think that an army of men armed with bayonets are going to be able to hold their own in melee against nine foot monstrosities?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 06:16:13 PM
You really think that an army of men armed with bayonets are going to be able to hold their own in melee against nine foot monstrosities?
That's not the question you asked.
I think that an army of men armed with bayonetted muskets in the Fredrickian mold would be at least as effective in meleé and more effective in fire as a mixed arequebus and pike armed army in the Gustavian mold when faced with a mob of crazed fantasy monster army.
I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 06:16:13 PM
You really think that an army of men armed with bayonets are going to be able to hold their own in melee against nine foot monstrosities?
Worked fairly well in India and Africa. Romans did pretty well against the Germans and Celts. Also, Orcs are smaller the humans.
Oh Jeez, why am I even thinking about this stupid bullshit?
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:28:25 PM
I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.
My understanding is that by the time the bayonet was introduced the lance had disappeared from Western European battlefields, replaced by the saber. Obviously there were holdouts further east.
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:28:25 PM
I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.
When did men armed with bayonets ever get into melee with knights in plate armor?
This thread needs more maps.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2011, 06:29:07 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 06:16:13 PM
You really think that an army of men armed with bayonets are going to be able to hold their own in melee against nine foot monstrosities?
Also, Orcs are smaller the humans.
I always forget that about Orks. Changed them to Uruk Hai who are at least man sized. The rest of the creatures on that list are big though.
The bayonet didn't falter in the wars against the assorted fiefdoms of India, so I'm going to assume that it's effective.
No. Just no.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 06:33:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:28:25 PM
I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.
My understanding is that by the time the bayonet was introduced the lance had disappeared from Western European battlefields, replaced by the saber. Obviously there were holdouts further east.
Lancers were somewhat commonplace in Western European armies well into the Napoleonic Era and beyond. The Victorian period saw the British use lancers quite a few times.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 06:33:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:28:25 PM
I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.
My understanding is that by the time the bayonet was introduced the lance had disappeared from Western European battlefields, replaced by the saber. Obviously there were holdouts further east.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancer
QuoteThe lancer (called ułan in Polish and Ulan in German) had become a common sight in almost every European, Ottoman and Indian army during this time, but with the exception of the Ottoman troops, they increasingly discarded the heavy armour to give greater freedom of movement in combat. The Polish "winged" lancers were amongst the last to abandon the armour in Europe. There was a widespread debate over the value of the lance in mounted combat during the 18th and 19th centuries and most armies had few lancer units by the beginning of the 19th century, however during the Napoleonic Wars lancers would be seen in many of the combatant nations as their qualities became clear. During the wars the Poles became a ready territory for recruitment by several armies, willingly or unwillingly, and served with distinction in most of these armies, most famously in Napoleon's French Imperial Guard as the 1er Regiment de Chevau-Legers-Lanciers de la Garde Impériale.
At Waterloo, French lances were "nearly three meters (about nine feet, ten inches) long, weighed three kilograms (about six pounds, ten ounces), and had a steel point on a wooden staff," according to historian Alessandro Barbero. He adds that they were "terrifyingly efficient." Commander of the French 1st Corps, 4th Division General Durutte, who saw the battle from the high ground in front of Papelotte, would write later, "I had never before realized the great superiority of the lance over the sword."[2]
In the Siege of Los Angeles, during war between Mexico and the United States, a company of Californio lancers temporarily recaptured the town, expelling a company of U.S. Marines.
Although the lance had its greatest impact in the charge, lancers were vulnerable against other cavalry, as the lance proved a clumsy and ineffective weapon (compared to the sabre) at close quarters. By the late 19th century, many cavalry regiments were composed of troopers with lances (as well as sabres or other secondary weapons) in the front rank and men with sabres in the second, the lances for the initial shock and sabres for the mêlée.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 18, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 06:33:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:28:25 PM
I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.
My understanding is that by the time the bayonet was introduced the lance had disappeared from Western European battlefields, replaced by the saber. Obviously there were holdouts further east.
Lancers were somewhat commonplace in Western European armies well into the Napoleonic Era and beyond. The Victorian period saw the British use lancers quite a few times.
Is this really true? Wasn't there a rebirth of lance cavalry around Nappytime? Did Western armies use lance cavalry in the earlier 18th century?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 06:36:26 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:28:25 PM
I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.
When did men armed with bayonets ever get into melee with knights in plate armor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_hussars
Has the armoured hussaria ending in 1705, during the Great Northern War when Swedes armed with Bayonettes invaded Poland.
Anyway the advances in artillery would seem to make the 18th century armies superior for monster killing.
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 06:36:26 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:28:25 PM
I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.
When did men armed with bayonets ever get into melee with knights in plate armor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_hussars
Has the armoured hussaria ending in 1705, during the Great Northern War when Swedes armed with Bayonettes invaded Poland.
Ironically many Swedes had pikes.
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 06:36:26 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:28:25 PM
I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.
When did men armed with bayonets ever get into melee with knights in plate armor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_hussars
Has the armoured hussaria ending in 1705, during the Great Northern War when Swedes armed with Bayonettes invaded Poland.
I'm sure most hussars killed by Swedish foot soldiers were shot. Furthermore, I don't think that a man on horseback is a good fill in for a bipedal creature. Horses are going to balk at charging a row of bayonets. Monsters won't and they'll be able to parry thrusts at them more effectively than a man on horseback could.
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2011, 06:54:26 PM
Is this really true? Wasn't there a rebirth of lance cavalry around Nappytime? Did Western armies use lance cavalry in the earlier 18th century?
This is my understanding (and there's nothing in Puff's article to rebut it).
I've never heard of lancers in the Seven Years War, or Spanish Succession, or all those other 18th century wars in Western Europe.
Prussia had ulhans, Russia had cossacks, Poland had lancers, and everyone else had a saber.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 07:03:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 06:36:26 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:28:25 PM
I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.
When did men armed with bayonets ever get into melee with knights in plate armor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_hussars
Has the armoured hussaria ending in 1705, during the Great Northern War when Swedes armed with Bayonettes invaded Poland.
I'm sure most hussars killed by Swedish foot soldiers were shot. Furthermore, I don't think that a man on horseback is a good fill in for a bipedal creature. Horses are going to balk at charging a row of bayonets. Monsters won't and they'll be able to parry thrusts at them more effectively than a man on horseback could.
Well, whatever your assumptions about monsters might be, the fact remains that you asked which would be better arquebus+pike or bayonette musket infantry would be against a monster horder. It seems that the musket infantry is at least as good in meleé and better at fire.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 07:04:53 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2011, 06:54:26 PM
Is this really true? Wasn't there a rebirth of lance cavalry around Nappytime? Did Western armies use lance cavalry in the earlier 18th century?
This is my understanding (and there's nothing in Puff's article to rebut it).
I've never heard of lancers in the Seven Years War, or Spanish Succession, or all those other 18th century wars in Western Europe.
Prussia had ulhans, Russia had cossacks, Poland had lancers, and everyone else had a saber.
The Hungarians had lancers as well..
Yes and the enemies of the Prussians, Russians, Poles and Hungarians - the Austrians, Prussians, French and Swedes had bayonetted musket wielding line infantry.
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 07:11:28 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 07:03:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 06:36:26 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:28:25 PM
I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.
When did men armed with bayonets ever get into melee with knights in plate armor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_hussars
Has the armoured hussaria ending in 1705, during the Great Northern War when Swedes armed with Bayonettes invaded Poland.
I'm sure most hussars killed by Swedish foot soldiers were shot. Furthermore, I don't think that a man on horseback is a good fill in for a bipedal creature. Horses are going to balk at charging a row of bayonets. Monsters won't and they'll be able to parry thrusts at them more effectively than a man on horseback could.
Well, whatever your assumptions about monsters might be, the fact remains that you asked which would be better arquebus+pike or bayonette musket infantry would be against a monster horder. It seems that the musket infantry is at least as good in meleé and better at fire.
...against people.
You seem to be missing the point that they're not fighting people. :mellow:
If you're going to fight creatures significantly larger and stronger than you, a row of pikes seems preferable to a row of bayonets.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 07:03:15 PM
I'm sure most hussars killed by Swedish foot soldiers were shot. Furthermore, I don't think that a man on horseback is a good fill in for a bipedal creature. Horses are going to balk at charging a row of bayonets. Monsters won't and they'll be able to parry thrusts at them more effectively than a man on horseback could.
You're forgetting the single most important fact about monsters: They hate being stabbed. They're still not going to be thrilled about charging a row of bayonets, still less when they're being shot to death.
Why not let science settle this? Train and equip two different midget armies and have them fight a horde of normal-sized folk.
Of course it will be a double blind test.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 07:25:13 PM
You seem to be missing the point that they're not fighting people. :mellow:
If you're going to fight creatures significantly larger and stronger than you, a row of pikes seems preferable to a row of bayonets.
OK, so to boil down your question here.
Which is preferrable when fighting a horde for LOTR monsters; which is preferrable a force consisting of 50% Pike and 50% Arquebus or a force consisting of 100% Line infantry with Musket and Bayonette?
1 - naturally the flintlock musket has twice the range and rate of fire of the matchlock arquebus, plus fantasy battles usually have nasty weather and rain to set the scene for the despairing humans.
2 - while the extra 12 feet of reach the pikes may have the bayonette muskets are 8ft long from hilt to tip may be useful, unless the monsters are using pikes themselves the bayonetted muskets would have sufficient reach.
3 - if the monsters are using pikes then they will be defeated in precisely the way the first line infantry defeated the last tercios.
So I gotta say, Line Infantry FTW.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 07:25:13 PM
...against people.
You seem to be missing the point that they're not fighting people. :mellow:
If you're going to fight creatures significantly larger and stronger than you, a row of pikes seems preferable to a row of bayonets.
Being 9 feet tall wouldn't really be that useful in a war. You would have to eat a lot more, you can't ride horses, logistics are a nightmare, and if you fall down you are likely to do a great deal of damage to yourself. Another thing that monsters are is often covered in fur or lots of hair. Hugely inconvenient in battle. You'll overheat within an hour.
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2011, 07:45:30 PM
Why not let science settle this? Train and equip two different midget armies and have them fight a horde of normal-sized folk.
You're so awesome Brain. :lol:
And in response to the earlier point on lances, they seem to have made a comeback after the disappearance of the pike from the battle field. I don't think that's a coincidence.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 08:35:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2011, 07:45:30 PM
Why not let science settle this? Train and equip two different midget armies and have them fight a horde of normal-sized folk.
You're so awesome Brain. :lol:
And in response to the earlier point on lances, they seem to have made a comeback after the disappearance of the pike from the battle field. I don't think that's a coincidence.
The were brought back from the east after the heavy lance cavalry is abandoned. Lancers are light scouting cavalry which don't seem to use the lances to attack formed infantry, but rather (like all other cavalry) pursue broken infantry and counter sword cavalary, which leads to curassiers.
I seem to have read about cavalry attacking the sides and rear of infantry formations during the Napoleonic wars. Were they lancers or sword eh, guys?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2011, 08:49:24 PM
I seem to have read about cavalry attacking the sides and rear of infantry formations during the Napoleonic wars. Were they lancers or sword eh, guys?
Can you be a little more specific? :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 08:53:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2011, 08:49:24 PM
I seem to have read about cavalry attacking the sides and rear of infantry formations during the Napoleonic wars. Were they lancers or sword eh, guys?
Can you be a little more specific? :lol:
They rode horses. I think some of them wore funny hats.
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2011, 06:56:25 PM
Anyway the advances in artillery would seem to make the 18th century armies superior for monster killing.
Yeah, "a whiff of grapeshot" would probably be even more effective against 9-foot monsters than against human-sized opponents.
I was leaning pikewards but on reflection...no, superior fire power ftw.
A pike to these giant monsters would be a pin prick. A musket shot though...that's going right through them whatever happens.
Hit something vital and down they go.
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2011, 09:17:31 PM
I was leaning pikewards but on reflection...no, superior fire power ftw.
A pike to these giant monsters would be a pin prick. A musket shot though...that's going right through them whatever happens.
Hit something vital and down they go.
A pike would go stab through any of the monsters I named and even a LOTR Troll would get a foot in the gut.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 11:01:59 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2011, 09:17:31 PM
I was leaning pikewards but on reflection...no, superior fire power ftw.
A pike to these giant monsters would be a pin prick. A musket shot though...that's going right through them whatever happens.
Hit something vital and down they go.
A pike would go stab through any of the monsters I named and even a LOTR Troll would get a foot in the gut.
I dunno, I just picture a minotaur with a club smashing them aside.
This discussion is relevant to me.
Quote from: Syt on November 19, 2011, 02:45:50 AM
This discussion is relevant to me.
You were thinking of writing a Renaissance fantasy at one time weren't you? :hmm:
Tyr, one and one I can see that. It'll be a bit more difficult if they're charging a battalion of pikes.
Are the monsters subject to morale, or are they the usual horde of ruthless automatons?
Quote from: Warspite on November 19, 2011, 10:40:34 AM
Are the monsters subject to morale, or are they the usual horde of ruthless automatons?
This is a very good point. Sources of the time report that bayonettes were almost never actually used in battle. The records from Les Envalides have a miniscule ammount of bayonette wounds. There are almost no cases in linear warfare of infantry contacting infantry. In almost all cases of infantry assaults the attacker either broke and retired or the defender broke and ran.
Does the attacker have enough morale to weather the withering fire? If yes, what does that say about how much of a murderous psychopath the average attacker is? Do you really want to fight a guy that will rund through gunfire just for the chance to kille you or will you run?
Quote from: Warspite on November 19, 2011, 10:40:34 AM
Are the monsters subject to morale, or are they the usual horde of ruthless automatons?
Almost all hordes are portrayed as being so, or if not then more afraid of the Dark Lord and his head minions then the enemy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 19, 2011, 11:00:34 AM
Quote from: Warspite on November 19, 2011, 10:40:34 AM
Are the monsters subject to morale, or are they the usual horde of ruthless automatons?
Almost all hordes are portrayed as being so, or if not then more afraid of the Dark Lord and his head minions then the enemy.
Basically FreddyII is the dark lord?
What do you mean? The hordes break all the time. Smaller numbers of better equipped and motivated humans are always causing panic and flight. They might fear the whip, but they always have a more pressing fear.
The morale of fantasy hordes isn't consistently depicted, except in the case of the undead.
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2011, 11:19:17 AM
The morale of fantasy hordes isn't consistently depicted, except in the case of the undead.
Morale is a function of organization. Usually the hordes are depicted as fairly poorly organized. I had to look at up what a Trolloc is, but they seem to be large somewhat hairy monsters that are disorganized and cowardly. I think musket men would make short work of them.
In medieval warfare there was a a lot of charge and retreat going on due to poor discipline. This why you read about knights making several charges during battle. They would charge then balk and then ride back to their starting lines. I imagine Tim's monsters would be the same.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2011, 02:35:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2011, 11:19:17 AM
The morale of fantasy hordes isn't consistently depicted, except in the case of the undead.
Morale is a function of organization. Usually the hordes are depicted as fairly poorly organized. I had to look at up what a Trolloc is, but they seem to be large somewhat hairy monsters that are disorganized and cowardly. I think musket men would make short work of them.
In medieval warfare there was a a lot of charge and retreat going on due to poor discipline. This why you read about knights making several charges during battle. They would charge then balk and then ride back to their starting lines. I imagine Tim's monsters would be the same.
While individual monsters vary depending on the setting from insanely bloodthirsty to deceitful and cowardly, the Big Bad usually has minions who control the mooks and make them do what they're told, whether by reigning in their bloodlust in the first case or simply scaring them more than the enemy in the second. And of course in some settings the horde is controlled directly by the Dark Lord's will.
Case in point, the Trollocs are controlled by the Myrddraal and have lunched charges to the death that make the Somme offensive look plausible in comparison.
The Soviets tried that. Turns out that's an ineffective way to fight.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2011, 03:58:17 PM
The Soviets tried that. Turns out that's an ineffective way to fight.
:lol: I can't disagree with you there.
If only Stalin had been able to get the human-ape hybrids he wanted!
Pike/musket combination ala the 1700 Carolean army. It's the only way to be sure.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 19, 2011, 03:49:02 PM
Trollocs are controlled by the Myrddraal and have lunched charges to the death that make the Somme offensive look plausible in comparison.
You really do have trouble telling fantasy from reality, don't you?
Quote from: Slargos on November 19, 2011, 04:11:31 PM
Pike/musket combination ala the 1700 Carolean army. It's the only way to be sure.
Wasn't that army humiliated and destroyed by a horde?
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2011, 05:32:56 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 19, 2011, 04:11:31 PM
Pike/musket combination ala the 1700 Carolean army. It's the only way to be sure.
Wasn't that army humiliated and destroyed by a horde?
Then the King hung out with the Turks for a while, with the understanding that in a few centuries time the Turks could all hang out in Sweden.
Quote from: dps on November 19, 2011, 05:11:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 19, 2011, 03:49:02 PM
Trollocs are controlled by the Myrddraal and have lunched charges to the death that make the Somme offensive look plausible in comparison.
You really do have trouble telling fantasy from reality, don't you?
I missed that. :XD:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2011, 07:35:48 PM
Quote from: dps on November 19, 2011, 05:11:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 19, 2011, 03:49:02 PM
Trollocs are controlled by the Myrddraal and have lunched charges to the death that make the Somme offensive look plausible in comparison.
You really do have trouble telling fantasy from reality, don't you?
I missed that. :XD:
100,000 dead in half an hour > 60,000 Brits dead in a day.
The Somme always looks plausible. because it actually happened. Killing 100,000 people in half an hour with medieval weaponry isn't plausible.
This thread is why the nazis were right in burning books.
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2011, 09:33:41 PM
The Somme always looks plausible. because it actually happened. Killing 100,000 people in half an hour with medieval weaponry isn't plausible.
Magic did the killing :sleep:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 19, 2011, 04:10:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2011, 03:58:17 PM
The Soviets tried that. Turns out that's an ineffective way to fight.
:lol: I can't disagree with you there.
If only Stalin had been able to get the human-ape hybrids he wanted!
He did. They are called slavs.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 19, 2011, 09:19:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2011, 07:35:48 PM
Quote from: dps on November 19, 2011, 05:11:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 19, 2011, 03:49:02 PM
Trollocs are controlled by the Myrddraal and have lunched charges to the death that make the Somme offensive look plausible in comparison.
You really do have trouble telling fantasy from reality, don't you?
I missed that. :XD:
100,000 dead in half an hour > 60,000 Brits dead in a day.
The US did that with Tokyo.
I'll go with line infantry. Bayonetts are nasty and quite capable.
A better scenario would be a modern infantry battalion against a monster horde.
My take is we can take odds of 1 of us per 1000 monsters.
So, let's round up our 800 strong infantry bat to 1000 to add some more combat support and supply, and it means we can take on 1,000,000 monsters.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 06:44:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2011, 06:29:07 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2011, 06:16:13 PM
You really think that an army of men armed with bayonets are going to be able to hold their own in melee against nine foot monstrosities?
Also, Orcs are smaller the humans.
I always forget that about Orks. Changed them to Uruk Hai who are at least man sized. The rest of the creatures on that list are big though.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi190.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz151%2Felomi23%2FMotivational%2520Posters%2FOrks.jpg&hash=65fd7f93fa8797ee96a58dcafb3d870bc5dc1684)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.demotivationalposters.org%2Fimage%2Fdemotivational-poster%2F1006%2Fchild-star-friends-babes-over-orcs-demotivational-poster-1276892636.jpg&hash=b81e7a5eec3916d32f69bcd9836f9ddd6a33c4a7)
Quote from: Siege on November 19, 2011, 10:25:12 PM
I'll go with line infantry. Bayonetts are nasty and quite capable.
A better scenario would be a modern infantry battalion against a monster horde.
My take is we can take odds of 1 of us per 1000 monsters.
So, let's round up our 800 strong infantry bat to 1000 to add some more combat support and supply, and it means we can take on 1,000,000 monsters.
I wouldn't go that far. You'd run out of ammo, and hand-to-hand you guys are pretty helpless against that sort of foe.
Who ever taught Siege how to post pictures should be feeling really bad right now.
Quote from: Siege on November 19, 2011, 10:16:27 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 19, 2011, 04:10:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2011, 03:58:17 PM
The Soviets tried that. Turns out that's an ineffective way to fight.
:lol: I can't disagree with you there.
If only Stalin had been able to get the human-ape hybrids he wanted!
He did. They are called slavs.
This is what I get for not making anti-semitic jokes on Languish. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2011, 01:16:51 AM
Who ever taught Siege how to post pictures should be feeling really bad right now.
It was Yi.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.profilebrand.com%2Ffunny-pictures%2Fcategory%2Fdemotivational%2F56_dualwielding.gif&hash=619e9984aa36b6f7753100ad576efcce2996a1a6)
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2011, 05:32:56 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 19, 2011, 04:11:31 PM
Pike/musket combination ala the 1700 Carolean army. It's the only way to be sure.
Wasn't that army humiliated and destroyed by a horde?
nope.logistics destroyed it. the horde never won an engagement where the superior nature of the model was applicable.
death ans the meaning of life.
I am never more alive than when iam taking my enemies' lifes. Wothless flies.
Death have tried to take my life many times, and I have laughed to her face, dare her to try, threatened to break every friggin bone in her body.
I deliver death and retribution upon America's enemies.
When I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, and I do this frequently, I fear no evil, for I am the meanest mothefucker in the valley.
Like, totally.
Was Haiti the firt slav rebellion to be succesful enough too create a knew country?
http://www.youtube.com/user/hastingsacoustic#p/a/u/0/zPk5B5lyVWA
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2011, 01:49:41 AM
This is what I get for not making anti-semitic jokes on Languish. :rolleyes:
I thought you refrained from that because Malthus and Minsky intimidate you. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 20, 2011, 07:12:55 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2011, 01:49:41 AM
This is what I get for not making anti-semitic jokes on Languish. :rolleyes:
I thought you refrained from that because Malthus and Minsky intimidate you. :hmm:
The TimeCube has alll answers. Stop being stupd edicated.
Quote from: Slargos on November 20, 2011, 04:10:33 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2011, 05:32:56 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 19, 2011, 04:11:31 PM
Pike/musket combination ala the 1700 Carolean army. It's the only way to be sure.
Wasn't that army humiliated and destroyed by a horde?
nope.logistics destroyed it. the horde never won an engagement where the superior nature of the model was applicable.
Couldn't even feed themselves? Pathetic.
Quote from: Slargos on November 20, 2011, 04:10:33 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2011, 05:32:56 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 19, 2011, 04:11:31 PM
Pike/musket combination ala the 1700 Carolean army. It's the only way to be sure.
Wasn't that army humiliated and destroyed by a horde?
nope.logistics destroyed it. the horde never won an engagement where the superior nature of the model was applicable.
Poltava?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 20, 2011, 08:28:46 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 20, 2011, 07:12:55 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2011, 01:49:41 AM
This is what I get for not making anti-semitic jokes on Languish. :rolleyes:
I thought you refrained from that because Malthus and Minsky intimidate you. :hmm:
The TimeCube has alll answers. Stop being stupd edicated.
Walton Cube. :mad:
Attention Misguided Reason Followers
Waltoncube is absolute economy of thought.
Cubeless thinking begets common sense.
Cubeless thinking allows for REASON GOD.
Your IGNORANCE of Waltoncube is evil.
Basketball is not a single game
Baskteball is 4 games cubed 4 × 1/4,
producing quarterly cube halved.
You are so stupid that you were educted
to think one game is single and not cubed.
Learning and attentiveness has RETARDED you.
TIME CUBE explains only 1/4 UNIVERSAL LAWS
Spectatorship is evil without cubic thought.
Waltoncube invalidates all common logic.
Bill Walton understands quartered professional game.
Attentive fans are EVIL to embrace single game thought.
Bill Walton is quartered superior to REASON GOD.
Bill Walton can accept simultaneous greatness
because of cubic thought.
Every player can be "greatest of all time" because
of WALTONCUBE paradigm that invalidates REASON GOD.
Every team can be simultaneously "worst of all time"
because Waltoncube logic negates reason paradigmn.
You are composed of 4 × 1/4 retarded quarters.
All quarters are simultaneous, comprising your stupidity.
NOT accepting Waltoncubein favor of reason is EVIL AND STUPID.
Players who make turnovers during 4 × 1/4 game are worst of all time.
The same player making shot then becomes greatest ever SIMULTANEOUSLY.
ONLY BILL WALTON UNDERSTANDS THIS,
and you have been learned dumb from evil
announcers with insight, credentials, and experience.
4 quarter reality of single game is VALIDATED,
disproving REASON GOD.
4 quarter logic PROVEN OBVIOUS by WALTONCUBE.
All existence obeys Waltoncube PARADIGM.
All logic surrenders to Bill Walton and quartered paradigm.
Not even timecube theory can compare, and is stupid and evil.
Stop your retarded dumbness, and embrace Waltoncube.
Quote from: Neil on November 20, 2011, 09:10:06 AM
Quote from: Slargos on November 20, 2011, 04:10:33 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2011, 05:32:56 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 19, 2011, 04:11:31 PM
Pike/musket combination ala the 1700 Carolean army. It's the only way to be sure.
Wasn't that army humiliated and destroyed by a horde?
nope.logistics destroyed it. the horde never won an engagement where the superior nature of the model was applicable.
Poltava?
Swedes don't like to be reminded of that.
Quote from: Neil on November 20, 2011, 09:10:06 AM
Quote from: Slargos on November 20, 2011, 04:10:33 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2011, 05:32:56 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 19, 2011, 04:11:31 PM
Pike/musket combination ala the 1700 Carolean army. It's the only way to be sure.
Wasn't that army humiliated and destroyed by a horde?
nope.logistics destroyed it. the horde never won an engagement where the superior nature of the model was applicable.
Poltava?
Poltava would've been more than winable if the Swedish army hadn't run out of supplies. My point still stands.
Quote from: Slargos on November 20, 2011, 03:00:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 20, 2011, 09:10:06 AM
Quote from: Slargos on November 20, 2011, 04:10:33 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2011, 05:32:56 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 19, 2011, 04:11:31 PM
Pike/musket combination ala the 1700 Carolean army. It's the only way to be sure.
Wasn't that army humiliated and destroyed by a horde?
nope.logistics destroyed it. the horde never won an engagement where the superior nature of the model was applicable.
Poltava?
Poltava would've been more than winable if the Swedish army hadn't run out of supplies. My point still stands.
If it can't win, it's inferior.
Quote from: Slargos on November 20, 2011, 03:00:11 PM
Poltava would've been more than winable if the Swedish army hadn't run out of supplies. My point still stands.
And who's fault is that?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2011, 04:09:08 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 20, 2011, 03:00:11 PM
Poltava would've been more than winable if the Swedish army hadn't run out of supplies. My point still stands.
And who's fault is that?
I am relatively sure it's not mine.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 18, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 06:33:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:28:25 PM
I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.
My understanding is that by the time the bayonet was introduced the lance had disappeared from Western European battlefields, replaced by the saber. Obviously there were holdouts further east.
Lancers were somewhat commonplace in Western European armies well into the Napoleonic Era and beyond. The Victorian period saw the British use lancers quite a few times.
As this is my first foray into this walking partial birth abortion of a thread, I was going to address the British use of lancers in the Victorian era.
As far at the thread topic goes, Kitchener et al already proved what worked on fantasy hordes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2011, 04:27:49 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on November 18, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 06:33:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:28:25 PM
I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.
My understanding is that by the time the bayonet was introduced the lance had disappeared from Western European battlefields, replaced by the saber. Obviously there were holdouts further east.
Lancers were somewhat commonplace in Western European armies well into the Napoleonic Era and beyond. The Victorian period saw the British use lancers quite a few times.
As this is my first foray into this walking partial birth abortion of a thread, I was going to address the British use of lancers in the Victorian era.
As far at the thread topic goes, Kitchener et al already proved what worked on fantasy hordes.
The Maxim Gun?
Quote from: Viking on November 20, 2011, 04:30:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2011, 04:27:49 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on November 18, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 06:33:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 18, 2011, 06:28:25 PM
I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.
My understanding is that by the time the bayonet was introduced the lance had disappeared from Western European battlefields, replaced by the saber. Obviously there were holdouts further east.
Lancers were somewhat commonplace in Western European armies well into the Napoleonic Era and beyond. The Victorian period saw the British use lancers quite a few times.
As this is my first foray into this walking partial birth abortion of a thread, I was going to address the British use of lancers in the Victorian era.
As far at the thread topic goes, Kitchener et al already proved what worked on fantasy hordes.
The Maxim Gun?
Killed a lot of darkskinned monsters. :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on November 20, 2011, 04:20:05 PM
I am relatively sure it's not mine.
Well you get to enjoy the fruits of the Swedish King's labor. As he dwelt with the Muslims, so shall the Muslims dwell with you.