StarDestroyer.Net BBS

why would they draw a line? faster transport is loved by all.

the elves, tho, it might piss off.

weemadando wrote:But the point is, that if these people take one look at our "diplomats" who aren't big and tough enough to be warriors in our society (according to medieval thinking), then they will be a) shitting themselves, b) queueing up to ally with us.

Its all about the psychology of it.

I dunno, I actually think they might be more intimidated if the smallest, meekest person in our group goes there and demonstrates the ease with which he can kill a man at 300 yards despite his seemingly small stature (preferably with a dummy target, since I suppose actually killing one of them might start us off on the wrong foot ).

As for introducing tech to Middle Earth, the old fogies will rebel, the younger generation will embrace it. That's the way it always works. Time will lead to the victory of new ways over reactionism.

MKSheppard wrote:

weemadando wrote: I think that they might draw the line somewhere.

Then we promptly mow them down with the quad .50 HMG
mounts on our methane powered humvees

I doubt where going to have more then a few stationary steam engines in service, if that, when our time is up. And once we accomplish our objectives we can go home, though I expect at least a few people would want to stay on and use there long lives to advance Middle Earth further.

Killing people to advance might be required, though it's more likely to be self-defense and to protect our equipment from sabotage.

hell, with the know how, we could restart the industrial revolution 5 yrs after mordor falls. why leave? we could be kings.

Prince Talen. I like it.

Enforcer Talen wrote:hell, with the know how, we could restart the industrial revolution 5 yrs after mordor falls. why leave? we could be kings.

Prince Talen. I like it.

Middle Earth does seem to have a few hotties.

hey wong, can you produce some contraceptive pills? we may need em.

hmmm Grima vs the Brotherhood of the Monkey MWA HA HA.Lets face facts most of the craziest rabid monkeys have the highest post counts on SD.Net

Enforcer Talen wrote:hey wong, can you produce some contraceptive pills? we may need em.

Nope. My preferred method of contraception requires no pills.

In other words,

"That'd be in the butt, Bob"

Silly us!

It is so worth it for a bunch of us to break our backs and bring in a dissassembled UAV. While the UAV team sets uop the aircraft and test-flies it, the Commando team goes to the Shire, takes the Ring, and brings it back.

Place Ring in UAV; remote-pilot to Mount Doom, kamikaze it into the lava; our team parties down and humps Elf chicks in drunken orgy of celebration.

weemadando wrote:I'm also wondering how the population of middle earth would react to our attempts to industrialise them.

I mean certain things like sewing machines and cotton gins may catch on quickly, but steam tractors or, if we got really into trade etc -trains.

I think that they might draw the line somewhere.

All indications are that the good folks of Middle Earth could industrialize if they wanted to. For one thing, the orcs have all manner of big and complex machines available to them, such as all the junk that the Ents ended up destroying or drowning out at Isengard. A primitive form of industrialization would also explain how even hordes of snaga can have metal armor of a sort that would not have looked out of place on one of William the Conqueror's knights. That is, primitive industrial production or huge levels of artisanal production of the sort the Romans used to support the Imperial war machine. That contrasts sharply with the Riders of Rohan, where in the king's own armory a shirt of mail is considered to be a major asset.

With the people of Middle Earth, the problem is that great metal machines belching smoke and noxious fumes would be regarded as more orc mischief, putting the taskforce as enthusiastic users of such machines on a level with the slaves of Sauron. And, in terms of philosophy, they would not even be that far off the mark, since the imported humans would not be much interested in gazing at the elves as if moonstruck or engaging in free dance and improvisational poetry competitions with elder beings.

Ok, next question. We make the raid and take pocession of the Ring, take it back to our pad and start working on it. We can't break the fucking thing so we encase it in a block of steal. It becomes apperent that we need to dump it into Mt. Doom, so how do we do it.

I really don't know enough about the geography of ME to make a decent plan, but I guess for starters we need to unite the "free" people of ME to attack Mordor.

Do we try for a commando mission ala the Fellowship? Or do we just carry the thing like some sort of fucked up Ark with our army while we slowly advance on Mordor and defeat their army and gain access to Mt. Doom and do the deed?

Knife wrote:Ok, next question. We make the raid and take pocession of the Ring, take it back to our pad and start working on it. We can't break the fucking thing so we encase it in a block of steal. It becomes apperent that we need to dump it into Mt. Doom, so how do we do it.

I really don't know enough about the geography of ME to make a decent plan, but I guess for starters we need to unite the "free" people of ME to attack Mordor.

Do we try for a commando mission ala the Fellowship? Or do we just carry the thing like some sort of fucked up Ark with our army while we slowly advance on Mordor and defeat their army and gain access to Mt. Doom and do the deed?

The problem there would be that it may be hard to motivate the various potential allies. If the operation is to take place a decade or more prior to the book's second War of the Ring, Mordor will likely still seem to be a relatively harmless annoyance to most, something to be dealt with by the grandkids, if at all.

Seeing our weapons might give them renewed vigour to fight.

Darth Wong wrote:Seeing our weapons might give them renewed vigour to fight.

I think the motivation to fight all goes back to what we can do to improve their lives in tangible ways, and will require some preparation - Going back to the Agro-Military Policy. They may not trust us simply because we have boom-sticks, but if we can improve crop yields? The thing is that we have to do it in a fashion that's readily embraced by the farmers.

(I haven't managed to keep up with the thread - Perhaps a summary should be made?)

Are we just discussing policy, now?

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Seeing our weapons might give them renewed vigour to fight.

I think the motivation to fight all goes back to what we can do to improve their lives in tangible ways, and will require some preparation - Going back to the Agro-Military Policy. They may not trust us simply because we have boom-sticks, but if we can improve crop yields? The thing is that we have to do it in a fashion that's readily embraced by the farmers.

(I haven't managed to keep up with the thread - Perhaps a summary should be made?)

Are we just discussing policy, now?

Durandal made a plan that'd enable us to accomplish our mission objective within 2 years with a 99% chance of success without any casualties.
Ren made a plan that'd require Tolkien's main characters to trust us, and that has a high chance of probability to end in a huge destructive war where nobody of us would come out alive and Sauron would get the Ring.

Perinquus wrote:Problem with the longbow is that there were never really all that many longbowmen. It took literally a lifetime of training, as well as tremendous upper body strength to use one of those things. As time went by, it became harder and harder to find quilified archers. By Henry VIII's day, this was actually becoming a concern. They passed laws forbidding the playing of football and other games on Sundays, in order to make people practice archery. Didn't work.

<snip>

If anyone really needs swordsmanship skills, it would only be your advanced scouts, who may have to operate away from the main body of your forces, and their job will be to avoid combat anyway. The few swords you might need for them, you'd be better off obtaining locally.

The point I was making was that whether or not there were a lot of longbowmen, it was the longbow that made plate armor obsolete, because it allowed a force of charging knights to be decimated at range (see Crecy and Agincourt for details). By the time longbow had started its decline, there were other weapons equally suited to taking care of plate available. I was NOT discussing longbows as a viable weapon for our expeditionary force.

If you wanted primitive weapons for hunting, might as well stock the armory with some modern crossbows and maybe a few pulley-action bows like they use in archery competitions these days. X-bow is point-and-shoot, and it isn't too hard to learn to use a normal bow at short range with a little practice, but that does not mean that you'd be anywhere near a real combat-qualified archer. This whole bow issue is just a sidetrack, but I did want to point it out in addition to YB's mention of the Swiss pikes. On the sword issue I was commenting that IF we want them, they won't be too difficult to produce ourselves. Again, I was not discussing them as viable weapons for us, same with armor, the comment was on the strengths of leather armor vs. metal armor IF they were to be used.

Keevan, perhaps the very best Damascus blades are made that way, but the man I talked to said that the ones made by his method also had that self-sharpening quality. To what degree compared to the strand ones, I don't know.

Edi

Edi wrote:Keevan, perhaps the very best Damascus blades are made that way, but the man I talked to said that the ones made by his method also had that self-sharpening quality. To what degree compared to the strand ones, I don't know.

Edi

We won't need to produce blades anyway so the point is moot.
We'll build muskets and hunt and trade with them.

Edi wrote: The point I was making was that whether or not there were a lot of longbowmen, it was the longbow that made plate armor obsolete, because it allowed a force of charging knights to be decimated at range (see Crecy and Agincourt for details). By the time longbow had started its decline, there were other weapons equally suited to taking care of plate available. I was NOT discussing longbows as a viable weapon for our expeditionary force.

Edi

Actually, the pike was more responsible. You have to remember, the longbow was not widely used. Only the English (and the Welsh from whom they got it) used the longbow, and since plate armor went obsolete even in areas of Europe where no longbowman ever set nock to bowstring, I think you have to look for another cause. The pike came into general use all over Europe, and pike formations turned out to be pretty much impervious to cavalry, thus making plate-armored, heavy cavalry obsolete. Then gunpowder weapons came along and put the final nails in plate armor's coffin.

Interestingly, the Swiss pikemen and German Landsknechte, eventually were overcome by sword and shield wielding Spanish infantry. About a millenium and a half earlier, sword and shield wielding Roman infantry overcame Greek pike formations in almost exactly the same way - the more maneuverable swordsmen got into the pike formations, and butchered the pikemen, whose long, cumbersome weapon was woefully unsuited to close combat with other infantry, fighting in smaller, more flexible formations.

Sword and shield wielding infantry are, however, very vulnerable to heavy cavalry. It's almost exactly like the old paper/rock/scissors game. Heavy cavalry>swordsman>pikemen>heavy cavalry>swordsmen, and so on, ad infinitum. This just illustrates the importance of combined arms tactics. A good general uses different types of troops to make the most of their strengths and cover each others' weaknesses.

For an excellent, and very thorough analysis of medieval military tactics from late Roman Europe to the beginning of the Renaissance, I'd highly recommend Sir Charles Oman's two volume magnum opus, The History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages. To this day, no finer or more thorough treatment of this subject is available in the English language.

I see. Point taken. The texts I've read on this focused more on the effect of the longbow, but it was concerned with the French vs. English instead of more globally. Thanks for the info.

Edi

Just to further sow confusion, there is another important factor favoring the pike's effect over that of the longbow in reducing the use of heavy body armor: cost.

The longbow was cheap to manufacture, but so was the pike, only moreso. More tellingly, it took literally decades of intense practice to produce the kind of longbowmen the English used to pound the French. Archery to the necessary high standards was hard to learn.

Given harsh discipline, a pikeman just had to learn to march in formation and raise or lower the pike on command, so that a worthwhile pikeman capable of more than just standing defensively like in the Scottish schiltrons could be turned out in a few weeks at most. Highly trained pikemen could even charge, but for most purposes the basic tactic of an immobile defensive formation and a slowly advancing hedge of pikes in the offensive worked just fine.

it was this same factor of cost effectiveness which dictated the eventual rise of the musket. After all, consider that a longbowmen could shoot his weapon five times a minute accurately, even out to maximum range; and as many as twelve times a minute if he was willing to make a slight sacrifice in accuracy. Maximum effective range was about 250 yards for a point target, and well over 300 yards for an area target if the longbowmen were massed in a formation. By contrast, a musket could be fired at a rate of only 3 shots per minute, at most, and at a maximum effective range of only 80 yards for a point target, and perhaps 150 for an area target.

But as I said earlier, it took literally a lifetime of training, as well as massive upper body strength to make a decent longbowman, whereas musketeers could be trained up in only a few weeks.

And once the bayonet was developed, the musketeer could do the job of both the bowman and the pikeman - not as well as either to be sure, but his versatility made up for that in some measure, and sheer cost effectiveness made up the rest. Then once the Minie ball was developed the musketeer (now a true rifleman) could comfortably outrange even the longbow, even if he still couldn't shoot as rapidly. Then when efficient breechloaders were developed in the 1850s, the last of the longbow's advantages - rate of fire- was finally ceded to the firearm.

In terms of this scenario, I think the ideal weapon to concentrate on developing a manufacturing capability for would be the famous Remington rolling block rifle.



It has the advantage of extreme mechanical simplicity, which makes for both a high degree of reliability in service, as well as ease of manufacturing, even by a primitive industrial complex. It was also noted for its great accuracy.

I'd say we should concentrate on the Chassepot.
It's at least equal to the Remington and we have the advantadge that I can bring one along as a pattern and that I'm familiar with this rifle.

Cpt_Frank wrote:I'd say we should concentrate on the Chassepot.
It's at least equal to the Remington and we have the advantadge that I can bring one along as a pattern and that I'm familiar with this rifle.

In terms of effectiveness its equal or superior to the Remington, true, but it's not as easy to manufacture. That's the key. What can you start off with that's reliable and accurate, but easy to churn out in very large quantities under even relatively primitive conditions? The rolling block's the best overall in that regard. Later, when a somewhat more advanced industrial plant has been established, a more advanced design would be a better bargain, but to start off with, keep it simple.