Filled Under:

rec.arts.books - 13 new messages in 3 topics - digest

rec.arts.books
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en

rec.arts.books@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Conan's Re: The Books That Founded D&D - 11 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/8ba57c69243a3499?hl=en
* Sa-Rah! Sa-RAH! How Dubya Gave Dummies a Bad Name. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/676d72a978192f13?hl=en
* Question - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/d2d48fd7666801a5?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Conan's Re: The Books That Founded D&D
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/8ba57c69243a3499?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 27 2009 11:52 pm
From: Juho Julkunen


In article <6dbdfde1-b1e1-4474-b698-229288583e03
@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Marko Amnell (marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi)
says...
> On Nov 27, 11:12 pm, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <e9e37ecc-e5af-4ec6-8318-
> > cfb3ce481...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Marko Amnell
> > (marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi) says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 27, 9:54 am, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <henpbd$mr...@news.eternal-september.org>, Dan Tilque
> > > > (dtil...@verizon.net) says...
> >
> > > > > "Marko Amnell" <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote
> >
> > > > > > But let's take an example from one of Howard's
> > > > > > stories and see if the combat is realistic or not.
> > > > > > Here is a fight from the short story "Queen of the
> > > > > > Black Coast" in which Conan fights a group of
> > > > > > barbarian pirates aboard a ship:
> >
> > > > > > "... A tall corsair, bounding over the rail, was met in midair
> > > > > > by the Cimmerian's great sword, which sheared him cleanly
> > > > > > through the torso, so that his body fell one way and his legs
> > > > > > another.
> >
> > > > > This is probably the most unrealistic part of this battle. No way is it
> > > > > possible for a human to slice a human body completely through the torso
> > > > > with one stroke. Just not enough strength, no matter how sharp the blade
> > > > > is. If he were a refugee from Krypton, he could do it, but otherwise no.
> >
> > > > Don't be silly. Sure, us civilized weaklings with muscles like rotten
> > > > string couldn't do it, but it is perfectly feasible for a mighty-thewed
> > > > barbarian born and bred under an open sky. Likewise he can hack off
> > > > limbs and split skulls without ever getting his sword stuck for even an
> > > > instant.
> >
> > > Your reading skills are as non-existent as your knowledge of military
> > > history. Quote me where Howard says that Conan's sword does not
> > > get "stuck for even an instant."
> >
> > Classy.
> >
> > Quote me where he says he does. It is implied he does not lose mobility
> > during the fight, nor does he lose his sword. He could hardly be
> > constantly moving and dealing lightning blows with his sword lodged in
> > somebodys skull.
>
> Just like a skilled matador (you can see this in bullfights), an
> experienced swordsman knows how to avoid getting his sword
> stuck. It's all about knowing where and when to thrust and
> how to cut.

Like, for example, not through bone.

> And it is not difficult for a very strong man like
> Conan to remove a stuck sword fairly quickly.

No it isn't. I'll concede that easily. He does have superhuman speed,
stamina, and strength, after all. But there's no indication he needed
to, here.

> Anyway, nothing in Howard's description suggests that it was
> a foregone conclusion that Conan would triumph in the fight
> against the pirates. Many things could have gone wrong, and
> in the end Conan would have died unless the leader of the
> pirates would have saved his life.

I'm not sure anyone has suggested that.

> What I have tried to explain
> is that it is not at all an unrealistic description of a fight.

So you have. I'll concede that, too.

--
Juho Julkunen


== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 28 2009 8:25 am
From: Marko Amnell


On Nov 28, 9:52 am, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Marko Amnell (marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi) says...

[...]

> > Just like a skilled matador (you can see this in bullfights), an
> > experienced swordsman knows how to avoid getting his sword
> > stuck. It's all about knowing where and when to thrust and
> > how to cut.
>
> Like, for example, not through bone.
>
> > And it is not difficult for a very strong man like
> > Conan to remove a stuck sword fairly quickly.
>
> No it isn't. I'll concede that easily. He does have superhuman
> speed, stamina, and strength, after all.

Not superhuman. Just near the human maximum. People
often think of Conan as a kind of superman, but he isn't,
at least not in the original REH stories. Maybe this
is the influence of the Marvel Comics and film
adaptations of Conan, which turn him into a superhero.
But in the original stories, Conan is a realistic
adventurer and rogue. He doesn't win every battle.
When he loses, he has to flee. He may return later
to seek revenge. He may get captured and thrown into
a dungeon.

The fight I quoted from "Queen of the Black Coast" is
a good example. Although he fights heroically (like
the real heroes from history I described such as Egil,
Chorsamantis, William Marshal or Peter Francisco)
and kills several opponents alone, in the end he would
have been killed if the fight had not been stopped
by Belit. Conan is also physically a lot like Egil and
Peter Francisco. I like the passage at the end of
_Egil's Saga_ when Egil's bones are moved into a
new church that is being built in Iceland:

"Under the altar some human bones were found,
much bigger than ordinary human bones, and
people are confident that these were Egil's because
of the stories told by old men. Skapti Thorarinsson
the Priest, a man of great intelligence, was there at
the time. He picked up Egil's skull and placed it on
the fence of the churchyard. The skull was an
exceptionally large one and its weight was even more
remarkable. It was ridged all over like a scallop shell,
and Skapti wanted to find out just how thick it was,
so he picked up a heavy axe, swung it in one hand
and struck as hard as he was able with the reverse
side of the axe, trying to break the skull. But the
skull neither broke nor dented on impact, it simply
turned white, and from that anybody could guess
that the skull wouldn't be easily cracked by small
fry while it still had skin and flesh on it."

It is ironic that Conan is misunderstood by so many
people because he lacks many of the things other
heroes of fantasy have, such as his own special
magic sword. He has no Excalibur, or Stormbringer
(the sword of Michael Moorcock's Elric) or any
other sword with its own name. Conan fights with
whatever weapons happen to be at hand, and his
rough and tumble adventuring life makes it unlikely
he would have the same sword for long. There are
stories in which horsemanship and archery are more
important than swordplay, and in other stories Conan
fights with his bare fists (one reason I posted the
link to the street fight where a tough boxer defeats
several opponents simultaneously).

Robert E. Howard stressed Conan's realism himself:

"It may sound fantastic to link the term 'realism'
with Conan; but as a matter of fact—his supernatural
adventures aside—he is the most realistic character
I ever evolved. He is simply a combination of a number
of men I have known and I think that's why he seemed
to step full-grown into my consciousness when I wrote
the first yarn of the series.
"Some mechanism in my subconsciousness took the
dominant characteristics of various prizefighters,
gunmen, bootleggers, oil field bullies, gamblers,
and honest workmen I had come in contact with, and
combining them all, produced the amalgamation I
call Conan the Cimmerian."
http://www.conan.com/f_howard.shtml

== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 28 2009 4:45 pm
From: "Endymion9"


To jump back in...

I would suggest that rather than Conan being a world class swordsman
fighting against loads of untrained swordsmen, Conan versue pirates or
barbarians might be more similar to the current Olympic gold medal winner in
fencing fighting several men who were merely alternates on their countries
teams. The one man still loses.

It's only in your imagination that one man can beat many other fair to good
swordsmen, even if he is the best. But if that imagination makes you happy
then continue to think so by all means <smile>.

--

--
Dennis/Endy9
~Some will sink, but we will float. Grab your coat. Let's get out of here.
You're my witness, I'm your Mutineer.~ Warren Zevon
--

== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 28 2009 9:36 pm
From: "Marko Amnell"

"Endymion9" <endymion91@comcast.net> wrote in message
jK6dnZDA8rBbVozWnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> To jump back in...
>
> I would suggest that rather than Conan being a world class swordsman
> fighting against loads of untrained swordsmen, Conan versue pirates or
> barbarians might be more similar to the current Olympic gold medal
> winner in fencing fighting several men who were merely alternates on
> their countries teams. The one man still loses.
>
> It's only in your imagination that one man can beat many other fair to
> good swordsmen, even if he is the best. But if that imagination makes
> you happy then continue to think so by all means <smile>.

Haven't you been paying attention to anything I have said
over the past week in this thread?

I quoted the considered opinion of Miyamoto Musashi,
a famous duelist and one the greatest swordsmen of all
time, that one master swordsman can defeat ten ordinary
men in combat. Why is Musashi wrong?

I provided an example from Howard's Conan stories
in which Conan, wearing full chainmail armour and a
helmet, barely defeats several naked savages wielding
clubs and spears. Nevertheless, Conan would have been
killed at the end of this fight but Belit, the leader of the
savages, spares his life. Why is this an unrealistic fight?

I (and another participant in this thread) explained in detail
why apparently unrealistic elements in this description,
such as spears bending on chainmail, or Conan's sword
cleaving a human body in two, are not in fact unrealistic.
Modern people are simply unaware of how tough real
chainmail is, as laboratory tests have shown. And
people who are not familiar with large swords do not
understand how easily they can cut an entire human body
in two. Again, this has been confirmed by modern tests.

I then provided several notable examples from history
in which actual warriors defeated several opponents at
the same time. Another participant in the tread added
an additional example: Cyrano De Bergerac. Let's review
some of these cases:

Chorsamantis. Procopius describes how in AD 538
Chorsamantis, a guard in Belisarius's army, repeatedly
defeated large groups of enemy horsemen alone, but in
the end was overcome by the entire Goth army and killed.
Why is Procopius not a reliable source?

Around 850 AD, Egil Skallagrimsson, a Viking adventurer
defeated several opponents at the same time. I quoted a
passage from _Egil's Saga_ in which Egil performs this feat
not once, but twice. He was wearing an improvised stone
breast plate, while his opponents were not wearing armour.
The description explicitly states that Egil's opponents
all attacked him together and tried to overpower him.

"The Lone Viking: In 1066, Harold Godwinson's Saxon
army marched to York to fight off Harald Hardrada's
Norwegian invasion. Harold caught his enemies by
surprise, but had to cross Stamford Bridge to get to
them. However, the bridge was held by a single
Viking champion who slew the first forty men who
tried to advance. By the time a boat had been floated
under the bridge and a long spear thrust upwards the
planks to kill him, the warrior had given his comrades
enough time to ready their arms and armour and prepare
their battle formations." Why do you doubt the truth of
this recorded historical fact?

In the 17th century:
"On the other hand Cyrano De Bergerac (real and fictional)
took on 100 swordsmen and won. Admitted he was a great
swordsman, and they were hacks, hired to overwhelm him
with numbers rather than skill. And he only killed a few,
mostly after finding a place to fight from that only allowed
one at a time to approach him and only from the front."
Why do you doubt this recorded historical fact?

In the 18th century, Peter Francisco defeated a band of
eleven enemy soldiers alone, armed only with a sword,
killing two or three while the rest fled. Why do you doubt the
truth of the facts in the incident known as"Francisco's Fight"?

I then explained that there are specific techniques that
can be used when facing multiple opponents. These
techniques are taught today in self defence courses.
In addition to fast movement, one of the attackers can
be used as a shield against the others. Also, when faced
with several opponents simultaneously, it is possible
to prevent them from outflanking you by moving backwards.

I even posted a link to a video on Youtube in which a
tough and skilled boxer defeats a group of opponents in a
street fight who all attack him simultaneously. He not
only wins but actually knocks out several of his opponents
You can literally see him do it with your own eyes.

Feel free to ignore all this evidence that you are wrong,
but your stubborn refusal to face the facts in no way
invalidates the evidence. Reasonable readers of this
thread have stated that they have been convinced by
the evidence.

== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 28 2009 10:24 pm
From: "Endymion9"


"Marko Amnell" <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:7nefjlF3kqh4tU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Endymion9" <endymion91@comcast.net> wrote in message
> jK6dnZDA8rBbVozWnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> To jump back in...
>>
>> I would suggest that rather than Conan being a world class swordsman
>> fighting against loads of untrained swordsmen, Conan versue pirates or
>> barbarians might be more similar to the current Olympic gold medal
>> winner in fencing fighting several men who were merely alternates on
>> their countries teams. The one man still loses.
>>
>> It's only in your imagination that one man can beat many other fair to
>> good swordsmen, even if he is the best. But if that imagination makes
>> you happy then continue to think so by all means <smile>.
>
> Haven't you been paying attention to anything I have said
> over the past week in this thread?
>
> I quoted the considered opinion of Miyamoto Musashi,
> a famous duelist and one the greatest swordsmen of all
> time, that one master swordsman can defeat ten ordinary
> men in combat. Why is Musashi wrong?
>
> I provided an example from Howard's Conan stories
> in which Conan, wearing full chainmail armour and a
> helmet, barely defeats several naked savages wielding
> clubs and spears. Nevertheless, Conan would have been
> killed at the end of this fight but Belit, the leader of the
> savages, spares his life. Why is this an unrealistic fight?
>
> I (and another participant in this thread) explained in detail
> why apparently unrealistic elements in this description,
> such as spears bending on chainmail, or Conan's sword
> cleaving a human body in two, are not in fact unrealistic.
> Modern people are simply unaware of how tough real
> chainmail is, as laboratory tests have shown. And
> people who are not familiar with large swords do not
> understand how easily they can cut an entire human body
> in two. Again, this has been confirmed by modern tests.
>
> I then provided several notable examples from history
> in which actual warriors defeated several opponents at
> the same time. Another participant in the tread added
> an additional example: Cyrano De Bergerac. Let's review
> some of these cases:
>
> Chorsamantis. Procopius describes how in AD 538
> Chorsamantis, a guard in Belisarius's army, repeatedly
> defeated large groups of enemy horsemen alone, but in
> the end was overcome by the entire Goth army and killed.
> Why is Procopius not a reliable source?
>
> Around 850 AD, Egil Skallagrimsson, a Viking adventurer
> defeated several opponents at the same time. I quoted a
> passage from _Egil's Saga_ in which Egil performs this feat
> not once, but twice. He was wearing an improvised stone
> breast plate, while his opponents were not wearing armour.
> The description explicitly states that Egil's opponents
> all attacked him together and tried to overpower him.
>
> "The Lone Viking: In 1066, Harold Godwinson's Saxon
> army marched to York to fight off Harald Hardrada's
> Norwegian invasion. Harold caught his enemies by
> surprise, but had to cross Stamford Bridge to get to
> them. However, the bridge was held by a single
> Viking champion who slew the first forty men who
> tried to advance. By the time a boat had been floated
> under the bridge and a long spear thrust upwards the
> planks to kill him, the warrior had given his comrades
> enough time to ready their arms and armour and prepare
> their battle formations." Why do you doubt the truth of
> this recorded historical fact?
>
> In the 17th century:
> "On the other hand Cyrano De Bergerac (real and fictional)
> took on 100 swordsmen and won. Admitted he was a great
> swordsman, and they were hacks, hired to overwhelm him
> with numbers rather than skill. And he only killed a few,
> mostly after finding a place to fight from that only allowed
> one at a time to approach him and only from the front."
> Why do you doubt this recorded historical fact?
>
> In the 18th century, Peter Francisco defeated a band of
> eleven enemy soldiers alone, armed only with a sword,
> killing two or three while the rest fled. Why do you doubt the
> truth of the facts in the incident known as"Francisco's Fight"?
>
> I then explained that there are specific techniques that
> can be used when facing multiple opponents. These
> techniques are taught today in self defence courses.
> In addition to fast movement, one of the attackers can
> be used as a shield against the others. Also, when faced
> with several opponents simultaneously, it is possible
> to prevent them from outflanking you by moving backwards.
>
> I even posted a link to a video on Youtube in which a
> tough and skilled boxer defeats a group of opponents in a
> street fight who all attack him simultaneously. He not
> only wins but actually knocks out several of his opponents
> You can literally see him do it with your own eyes.
>
> Feel free to ignore all this evidence that you are wrong,
> but your stubborn refusal to face the facts in no way
> invalidates the evidence. Reasonable readers of this
> thread have stated that they have been convinced by
> the evidence.
>
>
>

What I see as the error in your premise is that these pirates or barbarians
are "ordinary" men. They would be the swordsmen who had survived many
battles with other pirates, barbarians etc. There might be a few new
recruits, but mainly they would be made up of survivors who had more than
ordinary skill. That's why I related them to at least alternates on a
fencing team. Some of them might be better than that.

--

--
Dennis/Endy9
~Some will sink, but we will float. Grab your coat. Let's get out of here.
You're my witness, I'm your Mutineer.~ Warren Zevon
--

== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 28 2009 11:04 pm
From: "Marko Amnell"

"Endymion9" <endymion91@comcast.net> wrote in message
KLKdnWwWNM0zjo_WnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Marko Amnell" <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:7nefjlF3kqh4tU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Endymion9" <endymion91@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> jK6dnZDA8rBbVozWnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> To jump back in...
>>>
>>> I would suggest that rather than Conan being a world class swordsman
>>> fighting against loads of untrained swordsmen, Conan versue pirates or
>>> barbarians might be more similar to the current Olympic gold medal
>>> winner in fencing fighting several men who were merely alternates on
>>> their countries teams. The one man still loses.
>>>
>>> It's only in your imagination that one man can beat many other fair to
>>> good swordsmen, even if he is the best. But if that imagination makes
>>> you happy then continue to think so by all means <smile>.
>>
>> Haven't you been paying attention to anything I have said
>> over the past week in this thread?
>>
>> I quoted the considered opinion of Miyamoto Musashi,
>> a famous duelist and one the greatest swordsmen of all
>> time, that one master swordsman can defeat ten ordinary
>> men in combat. Why is Musashi wrong?
>>
>> I provided an example from Howard's Conan stories
>> in which Conan, wearing full chainmail armour and a
>> helmet, barely defeats several naked savages wielding
>> clubs and spears. Nevertheless, Conan would have been
>> killed at the end of this fight but Belit, the leader of the
>> savages, spares his life. Why is this an unrealistic fight?
>>
>> I (and another participant in this thread) explained in detail
>> why apparently unrealistic elements in this description,
>> such as spears bending on chainmail, or Conan's sword
>> cleaving a human body in two, are not in fact unrealistic.
>> Modern people are simply unaware of how tough real
>> chainmail is, as laboratory tests have shown. And
>> people who are not familiar with large swords do not
>> understand how easily they can cut an entire human body
>> in two. Again, this has been confirmed by modern tests.
>>
>> I then provided several notable examples from history
>> in which actual warriors defeated several opponents at
>> the same time. Another participant in the tread added
>> an additional example: Cyrano De Bergerac. Let's review
>> some of these cases:
>>
>> Chorsamantis. Procopius describes how in AD 538
>> Chorsamantis, a guard in Belisarius's army, repeatedly
>> defeated large groups of enemy horsemen alone, but in
>> the end was overcome by the entire Goth army and killed.
>> Why is Procopius not a reliable source?
>>
>> Around 850 AD, Egil Skallagrimsson, a Viking adventurer
>> defeated several opponents at the same time. I quoted a
>> passage from _Egil's Saga_ in which Egil performs this feat
>> not once, but twice. He was wearing an improvised stone
>> breast plate, while his opponents were not wearing armour.
>> The description explicitly states that Egil's opponents
>> all attacked him together and tried to overpower him.
>>
>> "The Lone Viking: In 1066, Harold Godwinson's Saxon
>> army marched to York to fight off Harald Hardrada's
>> Norwegian invasion. Harold caught his enemies by
>> surprise, but had to cross Stamford Bridge to get to
>> them. However, the bridge was held by a single
>> Viking champion who slew the first forty men who
>> tried to advance. By the time a boat had been floated
>> under the bridge and a long spear thrust upwards the
>> planks to kill him, the warrior had given his comrades
>> enough time to ready their arms and armour and prepare
>> their battle formations." Why do you doubt the truth of
>> this recorded historical fact?
>>
>> In the 17th century:
>> "On the other hand Cyrano De Bergerac (real and fictional)
>> took on 100 swordsmen and won. Admitted he was a great
>> swordsman, and they were hacks, hired to overwhelm him
>> with numbers rather than skill. And he only killed a few,
>> mostly after finding a place to fight from that only allowed
>> one at a time to approach him and only from the front."
>> Why do you doubt this recorded historical fact?
>>
>> In the 18th century, Peter Francisco defeated a band of
>> eleven enemy soldiers alone, armed only with a sword,
>> killing two or three while the rest fled. Why do you doubt the
>> truth of the facts in the incident known as"Francisco's Fight"?
>>
>> I then explained that there are specific techniques that
>> can be used when facing multiple opponents. These
>> techniques are taught today in self defence courses.
>> In addition to fast movement, one of the attackers can
>> be used as a shield against the others. Also, when faced
>> with several opponents simultaneously, it is possible
>> to prevent them from outflanking you by moving backwards.
>>
>> I even posted a link to a video on Youtube in which a
>> tough and skilled boxer defeats a group of opponents in a
>> street fight who all attack him simultaneously. He not
>> only wins but actually knocks out several of his opponents
>> You can literally see him do it with your own eyes.
>>
>> Feel free to ignore all this evidence that you are wrong,
>> but your stubborn refusal to face the facts in no way
>> invalidates the evidence. Reasonable readers of this
>> thread have stated that they have been convinced by
>> the evidence.
>>
>>
> What I see as the error in your premise is that these pirates
> or barbarians are "ordinary" men.

I never said they were ordinary men. I repeatedly described
them as savage barbarians, pirates and so on. The story
makes clear that they were not ordinary civilized men but
wild savages who knew how to fight.

> They would be the swordsmen who had survived many
> battles with other pirates, barbarians etc.

Not necessarily. They also might have mostly preyed on
ordinary sailors and relied on sheer numbers to win,
as real pirates did in the Caribbean in the 18th century.
There was nothing particularly heroic about dozens
of heavily armed pirates capturing poorly defended
merchant vessels, which is how real piracy worked.
You have been watching too many pirate movies.

> There might be a few new recruits, but mainly they would
> be made up of survivors who had more than ordinary skill.
> That's why I related them to at least alternates on a fencing
> team. Some of them might be better than that.

There is nothing whatsoever in Howard's description
to suggest that the barbarian pirates were champion
warriors. They were savages and competent fighters,
nothing more. They were used to facing unskilled
sailors in their piracy, whom they slaughtered just
like the sailors aboard the ship attacked in the
passage I quoted. Suddenly they were faced with
a huge and powerful man in full armour who was
the greatest swordsman of his age. They were totally
unprepared for this calibre kind of opponent. Conan's
armour also gave him a huge advantage against literally
naked enemies, as Howard stresses in his description.
You keep ignoring Conan's armour.

Chorsamantis defeated large numbers of tough
and experienced Goth warriors. There is nothing
in Howard's description of the pirates in "Queen
of the Black Coast" that suggests they were more
skilled or tougher than such barbarian Goth warriors.

Similarly, Egil defeated several tough, skilled and
experienced Viking warriors, also barbarian
fighters. The lone Viking champion on Stamford
Bridge in 1066 defeated Saxon warriors, notoriously
tough opponents.

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 28 2009 11:25 pm
From: "Arindam Banerjee"

"John F. Eldredge" <john@jfeldredge.com> wrote in message
news:7nbjjpF3lb0i5U2@mid.individual.net...
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:12:06 +0000, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
>> War elephants (well armoured, well trained and huge) were used to crush
>> infantry formations, if they massed as in a square. There is a sutra by
>> Chanakya which reflects this strategy - how the infantry run before an
>> elephant charge!
>> The main problem here is that the first lines do the fighting. In a
>> chakra, the line is always fresh as they are rotating. By slashing at
>> an angle with all their might, they are expected to mow their way
>> through the other formation.
>
> I have read that war elephants had one major drawback: if injured, they
> tended to take their revenge on any humans within reach, regardless of
> which army the humans belonged to. As a result, they tended to be as
> deadly to their own side as to the enemy.

Right, that was partly true for Hannibal at the battle of Zama (which he
lost). From the book on Hannibal that I have (by Ernle Bradford).
Hannibal's elephants were small (the 8 foot North African variety that could
be tamed) and untrained. Nevertheless, they did cause a fair bit of damage,
though according to contemporary accounts they were scared by trumpet
blasts.

Looks like only 1 elephant survived, and that was the Indian elephant
"surus" or as I suspect "Surya" or sun. The rest were probably North
African elephants, rather small and not so easy to train.


>
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- john@jfeldredge.com
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
> than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria


== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 28 2009 11:36 pm
From: "Arindam Banerjee"

"Ted Nolan <tednolan>" <ted@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in message
news:7nc27pF3j6qvdU1@mid.individual.net...
> In article <7nbjjpF3lb0i5U2@mid.individual.net>,
> John F. Eldredge <john@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:12:06 +0000, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>
>>> War elephants (well armoured, well trained and huge) were used to crush
>>> infantry formations, if they massed as in a square. There is a sutra by
>>> Chanakya which reflects this strategy - how the infantry run before an
>>> elephant charge!
>>> The main problem here is that the first lines do the fighting. In a
>>> chakra, the line is always fresh as they are rotating. By slashing at
>>> an angle with all their might, they are expected to mow their way
>>> through the other formation.
>>
>>I have read that war elephants had one major drawback: if injured, they
>>tended to take their revenge on any humans within reach, regardless of
>>which army the humans belonged to. As a result, they tended to be as
>>deadly to their own side as to the enemy.
>>
>>--
>
> Cuppy was of the opinion that they certainly didn't do Hannibal any good..
>
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Will_Cuppy :
>
> Hannibal
>
> * The Romans were stern and dignified, living hard, frugal lives
> and adhering to the traditional Latin virtues, gravitas, pietas,
> simplicitas, and adultery.
>
> * [Footnote] Carthage was governed by its rich men and was
> therefore a plutocracy. Rome was also governed by its rich men
> and was therefore a republic.
>
> * [Footnote] The Phoenicians employed an alphabet of twenty-one
> consonants. They left no literature. You can't be literary
> without a few vowels.
>
> * Hamilcar also told Hannibal about elephants and how you must
> always have plenty of these animals to scare the enemy. He
> attributed much of his own success to elephants and believed
> they would have won the First Punic War for him if things hadn't
> gone slightly haywire; for the war had turned into a naval
> affair. But even when the fighting was on land, the Romans did
> not scare nearly so well as expected. The Romans had learned
> about elephants while fighting Pyrrhus, whose elephants defeated
> him in 275 B.C., and even before that, in Alexander's time,
> King Porus had been undone by his own elephants. Thus, if history
> had taught any one thing up to that time, it was never to use
> elephants in war.
>
> * Then Hamilcar # was drowned in 228 B.C. while crossing a
> stream with a herd of elephants.
>
> * Taking elephants across the Alps is not as much fun as it
> sounds. The Alps are difficult enough when alone, and elephants
> are peculiarly fitted for not crossing them.
>
> * Whenever a thousand or so of his men would fall off an Alp,
> he [Hannibal] would tell the rest to cheer up, the elephants
> were all right. If someone had given him a shove at the right
> moment, much painful history might have been avoided.
>
> * [Footnote] Livy informs us that Hannibal split the huge Alpine
> rocks with vinegar to break a path for the elephants. Vinegar
> was a high explosive in 218 B.C., but not before or since.
>
> * Most of the original group [of elephants] succumbed to the
> climate, and he [Hannibal] was always begging Carthage for more,
> but the people at home were stingy. They would ask if he thought
> they were made of elephants and what he had done with the
> elephants they sent before. Sometimes, when he hadn't an elephant
> to his name, he would manage to wangle a few from somewhere, a
> feat which strikes me as his greatest claim to our attention.
>
> * And he [Hannibal] probably believed, up to the very end, that
> everything might still come out right if he only had a few
> you-know-whats.
>
>
> Ted
> --
> ------
> columbiaclosings.com
> What's not in Columbia anymore..

They most probably beat the shit out of Alex's infantry, left him stranded
and helpless. The spin doctors of that time, who wanted to save his
reputation, then caused history students to learn (and teach) wrong lessons
for 2335 years.

Alexander's attempted invasion of India is not noted by any Indian account,
so to Indians it was of negligible importance. However, what is noted is
that Alexander's generals attacked India with all the power of the Western
world. And were defeated, soundly. With vital help from elephants, of
course.

I think it very likely that later generals like Napoleon and Hitler secretly
wanted to do what Alexander failed to do - invade and conquer India by land.

It is likely that Hannibal knew a fair deal about Indian elephants, and
their use. He spent a lot of his time in Italy on one of them. The problem
for him was that the North African elephants were small and not so easy to
train.


== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 28 2009 11:46 pm
From: wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr)


In article <6dbdfde1-b1e1-4474-b698-229288583e03@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Marko Amnell <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> said:

> Just like a skilled matador (you can see this in bullfights), an
> experienced swordsman knows how to avoid getting his sword
> stuck. It's all about knowing where and when to thrust and how to
> cut.

How well does that reconcile with "The fighting-madness of his race
was upon him, and with a red mist of unreasoning fury wavering
before his blazing eyes..." though?

-- wds

== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 29 2009 12:02 am
From: Lawrence Watt-Evans


On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:36:41 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
<marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:

>Chorsamantis. Procopius describes how in AD 538
>Chorsamantis, a guard in Belisarius's army, repeatedly
>defeated large groups of enemy horsemen alone, but in
>the end was overcome by the entire Goth army and killed.
>Why is Procopius not a reliable source?

Have you read his Secret History? Several of the claims he makes
therein are flat-out impossible -- the body counts he attributes to
Justinian exceed the entire population of the world at the time. This
makes him less than completely reliable.

But Chorsomantis probably existed, and probably did much of what
Procopius claimed.


--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html


== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 29 2009 12:11 am
From: wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr)


In article <slrnhguhhr.gl3.dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) said:

> ObSF: "And the 'edgehog can never be buggered at allllll!"
>
> Dave "though that's PROBABLY not what she was singing about, I'd
> put her up against many sergeants any day" DeLaney

[*]

-- wds


==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sa-Rah! Sa-RAH! How Dubya Gave Dummies a Bad Name.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/676d72a978192f13?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 28 2009 7:39 am
From: Alan Hope


On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:50:52 -0800 (PST), in misc.writing Just Me
<jpdm45@gmail.com> wrote:

>Why wouldn't Skip want his photo posted?

Ask him.


--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Question
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/d2d48fd7666801a5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 28 2009 6:36 pm
From: "Joey Jolley"


What are the chances of violence and profanity being eliminated from
novels?

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.arts.books"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.arts.books+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Sonia Choudhary

Author & Editor

Has laoreet percipitur ad. Vide interesset in mei, no his legimus verterem. Et nostrum imperdiet appellantur usu, mnesarchum referrentur id vim.

0 comments:

 

We are featured contributor on entrepreneurship for many trusted business sites:

  • Copyright © Currentgk™ is a registered trademark.
    Designed by Templateism. Hosted on Blogger Platform.