376 replies to this topic

[{IP} Aridor]

Then why suggest that a hobbit would do well with a stick. Not a quarterstaff, they are two small to use that. A quarterstaff isn't deadly even used by men. It is a weapon for the archer and mainly for self-defense. If you are as knowledgeable as you say then why would you make a such clear error? I assume you were just acting on impulse and are unlearned in the art of debate. Please give your opponents honor and fight with intellect. In battle before you strike observe your enemy, circle them, learn them, plan your attack, have back-up plans, then wait for a weakness, and only then strike. Learn my weaknesses, learn my strengths, only then we may enjoy the battle. I love to debate and argue so learn how to fight then it would be my distinct pleasure to give you the honor of a hard fought fight; if you return the honor. In all you do do it with thought, honor, and excellence.

P.S. On my honor I do not dislike you. I just want you to fight properly, with honor. I want to face off with someone who is beyond my skills in debate.

[Jaguar6]

Could you please stop saying that I have and "unlearned sense of debate", I think before I type and try not to react with anger. I hate arguing over pointless things, but I do know how to argue, so please don't treat me like a two year old (no offense meant by the way ). I come from a highly intellectual family that loves to debate about things, but no arguing is aloud

I am not "beyond your skills of debate.", I was just thought you were some annoying teenager who thinks that he knows everything about LOTR, even though he never even read the books

Edit: Back on topic, to my knowledge the Quarterstaff is mainly a training weapon, and how would an Archer carry one around, wouldn't a sword be easier for an Archer? During the Medieval ages the staff was also used as a dueling weapon, and since it was easy to get and use, why not use it to keep peasants under control?
"But as they came to the east end of the village they met a barrier with a large board saying NO ROAD; and behind it stood a large band of Shirrifs with staves in their hands and feathers in their caps, looking both important and rather scared."-The Scouring of the Shire, The Return of the King, J.R.R. Tolkien
He doesn't say they use sticks, but staffs.

Edited by Jaguar6, 25 August 2008 - 05:25 PM.

[{IP} Aridor]

A stick is a staff. Thats just semantics. We are talking about hobbits going to war. I am not saying that the sheriffs didn't use sticks. I am saying that they would go fight to help save Arnor with them. In battle it would be useful for an archer that was to poor to own a sword to cut down a stout staff to protect themselves. As far as hobbits are concerned, they are half the size of men. So their staffs would be like a meager walking stick for a man. These when used by a hobbit provide little to no threat to anything but wild animals and other hobbits. They are used for hounding robbers and wild animals. They are non-lethal. Hence why they wouldn't use them in war. During the battle of Bywater Frodo didn't want to kill the bandits unless he had to. Hence why they still used their staffs. But, we are debating the use of hobbits in Arnor's army. So we assume that they know they are going to war so they would arm themselves better. Hence why a staff/stick is silly. It is not a weapon of war. This is war, even a hobbit would have the good sense to at least grab a wood chopping ax.

[Jaguar6]

A staff is a very strong stick though, if you know how to use them then you can easily take on a swordsmen (I have taken on swordsmen with staffs by the way ), and I doubt that any Hobbits had swords, what could they use besides staffs and axes? I get your point, but the axes used to get fire wood (why else would they have axes) are considerably small, for a human they are only about a foot long, I personally would rather have a staff over a one foot long axe.

[{IP} Aridor]

Did you fight to kill? It is hard to get an idea for how a weapon matches up unless it is for real. The problem is that when it is for real somebody ends up cold. A hand ax would be quite deadly for a hobbit b/c they are small and have a good angle of things like the groin and the hamstrings. Match an ax with a staff for defense and you would have a decent fighter. Clearly only the leaders would be able to get their hands on a sword, but the axes and knives would help. These hobbits wouldn't be a big threat, but when matched with their stealth skills an enemy commander can't ignore them. If I was using hobbits I would station them in forest on the flanks and rear of armies. Then when the main force moved to engage my men I'd have them attack the baggage. When fighting was thickest and fiercest. I'd use rangers on the flank to drive the flanks into the center. This would cause disorganization in the middle. Then the hobbits would fall on the rear. with their surprise and stealth. The low height would allow them to hamstring a surprised much larger enemy. Looking at hobbits, one would assume they would use team tactics to take down an enemy. One goes for the back of the legs while the other distracts. The enemy falls when his tendons are cut and then the hobbits finish him off. It wouldn't be effective in a pitched battle, but you wouldn't use them in a pitched battle.

[Dalf32]

excuse me as i interject myself into this argu...*ahem* debate
*dalf steps in between jaguar and AA*

@jaguar: you claim that hobbits can use nothing but staves and axes, but you and i had a conversation (on the previous page iirc) about miscellaneous farm equipment that they could use effectively in battle did we not? why not use any one of those.

@AA: brilliant bit of tactics there, couldnt agree more.

*dalf slowly shuffles away from jaguar and AA*

[{IP} Aridor]

Actually argument is a synonym for a debate.

You could use pitchforks, scythes, sickles, meat cleavers, all sorts of stuff.

[Devon]

Actually argument isn't synonymous with with debate.

And you guys both need to cool down.

[{IP} Aridor]

Umm it is. That is subtle misunderstanding that the current culture has developed. The proof of this is in phrases like "for the sake of argument". An argument is actual what you are saying. You have an argument and they have an argument and together we have an argument. This is reflected in the precise mathematical meaning. Now what is know popularly thought of as an argument should precisely be called a heated argument or a verbal fight. An argument is simple what happens when to people have opposing views and come up with arguments to argue their case. See it is a far more versatile word then most initially realize. It is a pity that our modern culture is loosing the precise meanings of words nad their varied subtleties based on context. Well I guess Orwell was right, newspeak is inevitable. And we aren't angry. Well I am not.

[Devon]

Um, no, it isn't

You can debate something with arguing it. Square rectangle thing.

[{IP} Aridor]

They have subtle differences but are close enough that they are synonyms.

[Devon]

This is an argument. We're trying to convince the other person of our own point of view.

In a debate you aren't necessarily trying to convince the other person, it can be a simple discussion or academic debate.


Sometimes they're the same, and sometimes they're not, but we're both largely off topic.

[{IP} Aridor]

True that is the subtle difference. But that is why they are different words. Synonyms aren't exactly the same.

[Ed Of The 3rd Kind]

True that is the subtle difference. But that is why they are different words. Synonyms aren't exactly the same.

Hobbits! Anyone?

[{IP} Aridor]

Well they are a short small people that like to live in hobbit hole. Hobbits holes are nice little houses dug into the side of a hill. Hobbits love food, beer, and peace. They live mostly in the Shire, but there is a large group that lives in breeland. Hobbits are related to men in someway.

[Jaguar6]

@jaguar: you claim that hobbits can use nothing but staves and axes, but you and i had a conversation (on the previous page iirc) about miscellaneous farm equipment that they could use effectively in battle did we not? why not use any one of those.

Actually the guys I was talking about before were Hobbit Pitchforks, right now I'm talking about Hobbit Shirrifs.

Lol, they're arguing over debates

Anyways AA (mind if I call you that?), I guess you are right, but the guys who get pitchforks, scythes, bills, and all of those other farm tools are Hobbit Pitchforks/Militia. That leaves axes and staffs for Hobbit Shirrifs. Unless we gave the hoes and hakes to them instead of the militia.

Just to clear up any confusion...
Hobbit Militia (discussed on past page): Basic anti-cavalry units that are weak, but cheap. They are armed with pitchforks, bills, scythes, forks, and any other pointy thing they can get their hands on.
Hobbit Shirrifs (currently being discussed): Basic infantry that is also weak, but cheap. They use staffs, axes, rakes, clubs, and other common tools that can cause pain.

Edited by Jaguar6, 25 August 2008 - 08:57 PM.

[Dalf32]

i would actually say that the connotation of the word argument has changed to become more negative than that of debate, rather than the actual meaning being changed (or perhaps misunderstood/assumed) by people. thats jsut how i distinguish the two.

militia is still too broad a term imo for an anti-cavalry unit. perhaps i am so stubborn on this because pitchforks is one of the most unique unit names in the game and it sits very very well with me. perhaps if we can come up with a name that is a tad more specific to what their purpose is i would be happier.

i would certainly be in favor of giving the shirrifs (if that is going to be their new name) miscellaneous shorter farm tools (hammers, axes, miscellaneous pointy things, etc) in place of their current sticks. anyone else *raises hand and glances around the room*

[mike_]

Sounds good to me (assorted sharp farm tools).

I want to face off with someone who is beyond my skills in debate.

I'm game. Wanna go?

[Jaguar6]

i would certainly be in favor of giving the shirrifs (if that is going to be their new name) miscellaneous shorter farm tools (hammers, axes, miscellaneous pointy things, etc) in place of their current sticks. anyone else *raises hand and glances around the room*

I guess I'm okay with that.

militia is still too broad a term imo for an anti-cavalry unit. perhaps i am so stubborn on this because pitchforks is one of the most unique unit names in the game and it sits very very well with me. perhaps if we can come up with a name that is a tad more specific to what their purpose is i would be happier.

But what else could we call the Hobbit Militia? Hobbit Farmers? Here's what they could look like anyways...

I made it by getting a picture in the game, and editing it with paint. What do you think?

[Dalf32]

thats actually pretty impressive for paint. but me no likey bills/scythes as makeshift pikes.
perhaps someone else could jump in on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of those two as used against cavalry.