Trebuchet Snobbery and the Return of the King
A common misuse of the trebuchet in cinema is the siege weapon's combative use against ground troops. As any trebuchet hobbyist will tell you, the easiest way to explain a treb to someone is to refer to it as a catapult and yet the two have very little in common aside from their basic hurling purpose. A catapult (onager, mangonel, what have you), generally perceived properly, is a tension mounted device used to hurl heavy objects for moderate distances... It's target is pretty much up to chance, so a catapult is most effective against large groupings of enemy forces and large or light structures. A trebuchet, however, is a long-range sling-based weapon known for its precision; it can not fire as quickly (changing trajectory and distance are also a more involved process) as a catapult nor can it carry multiple ammunitions in one firing. The trebuchet was/is used against heavy, preferably stationary fortifications; it can hit these with more force and accuracy than a catapult would ever be capable of. While a trebuchet is certainly capable of firing on ground forces, the excess power and precision is superfluous (a giant boulder does not have to be moving too fast to flatten a human), the sacrifice of speed and area-of-effect of shots would be too great to be effective.
That said, one has to wonder what the defenders of Middle Earth's Minas Tirith (P. Jackson version) were thinking when installing trebuchets along its walls for city defense. Ye gods! The only way such a thing would be worth while is if Sauron's tower sprouted hen's legs and began marching on the city itself. In Return of the King, we watch as a few boulders crush a few targets but against half the army of Mordor such scattered shots are inconsequential. If only onagers had been installed along the front and secondary walls! Or ballistae along the fortress' gates! So many lives would have been saved. Case in point, it took legions of the dead devouring all in their path to tilt the battle towards the human side in the movie version of Return of the King, while the books' army of man (presumably, armed with proper knowledge of siege warfare) needed the dead only to tangentially capture Mordorian ships in order to succeed.
What a difference a siege makes.
Input by Mike at 7:50 PM
Memo on More (Moore?) Blogging
Scot never got the memo about RF being apolitical, but that's okay. Readers will need to get used to his incendiary rhetoric at some point or another, and it's best to start with something simple like Michael Moore. Scot's a Michael Moore defector; he used to swear by Roger and Me and Awful Truth. But then, even long before Bowling for Columbine, Scot saw Moore start to go a little loopy (maybe he'll tell us the story). And here we are. For more on Moore (pun of the day?), check out Spinsanity; there you will find some of the most independent-minded indictments of Moore playing fast and loose with the truth (a phrase which is now forbidden for the rest of 2004).
To be a dork for a second, I would like to explain each of the three current blog team member's in Dungeons and Dragons alignment terms (the idea was given to me by my manager at work, who is a serious but respectable D&D player). I am replacing Good and Evil with right and left or left and right (it is inconsequential really), but Chaotic, Lawful and Neutral will remain the same. Scot is Lawful Right, Andy is probably somewhere around Lawful Left and True Neutral and I like to think I am somewhere between True Neutral and Neutral Right. I think there's a lot we can learn about politics through Dungeons and Dragons, but I'm not really qualified to make that post.
Input by Mike at
7:07 PM
Scot on Moore on Clark
Apparently, I will be posting here now too, introduction by Mike or not.
This is a test post. This is only a test. But to make it worthwhile, a few notes about crazy Michael Moore's endorsement of Wesley Clark. First of all, if I were Clark, I'd decline the endorsement, but that's not going to happen. Moore sent out an e-mail explaining his reasons for support. A few of the highlights:
1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks.
This is Moore's main thrust in his current incarnation (besides not responding when terrorists attack us): class warfare. The left has no new ideas, no passion, no drive, no real support in working class America for their radical anti-war stance. So, it comes down to taxing the rich. "Socking it to them," as Mike says. What have the rich done to deserve this? Well, they've been successful in life. They've worked hard to accumulate wealth. They are the success stories in this country. And the reward is paying 5% extra in income taxes.
What about the family of three making under $50,000? Are they less deserving of a tax break than a family of four?
2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.
Well, there's a lot of lies in that paragraph. Bush will not bring back the draft. Recruitment is up right now. And in fact, re-enlistment is supassing the Army's goals. That's right. More troops in Iraq are re-enlisting than even the Army expected. DOn't believe me? Unlike what Moore would do, here's an actual link to facts:
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=17852&archive=true
Another of Mr. Moore's reasons:
3. He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter!
Excuse me, (cough, cough) Mike. You might want to read this:
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm
Those attacks for the war are also stunning and brilliant!
Mike's never been afraid to play fast and loose with the truth though. That feels about right for a first post. Let's see if this works.
Input by Scot at
9:11 AM
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
More Bloggers to Blog Things
Andy Buchenot is going to be joining the The Machine's Still On crew as RF moves its critical writings into this forum. Another voice and one as interesting as Andy's brings variety and reduces my feeling of preaching (even if I'm right about everything). Posting will probably be picking up as a result of this and things will be more regular as we continue the major overhaul of Robots Fighting magazine. If you're getting anxious to see those changes check out the testing page. As soon as I finish the illustrations and basic structure, this page will be taking over the old main page.
Anyway, Andy can feel free to write here now, and you can feel free to read.
Input by Mike at
11:50 PM
The Way Things Ought (Not?) To Be
Today my grandmoms and regularmom came out for lunch and visit. At lunch, our crossing conversation had me and my mom discussing a new addition to her sewing machine (it is, to my credit, a very high tech sewing machine) while my grandmas, one in a pink sweatshirt the other wearing a soft white sweater, discussed the weekend's playoff football action.
Palindrome Speaking
Two guys sitting next to us were talking about home furnishing and one said to the other, "They are the nicest wood floors I have ever seen. And I said that to him, I said, 'These are the nicest wood floors I have ever seen.'" I do this occasionally but it made me smile to know others fall into the trap as well. Palindrome speaking (a term which I just invented and hope to use regularly) is an awkward, dull and clumsy part of rhetoric, but there is something... neat about it.
Input by Mike at
1:27 PM
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
For Those Who Have Rocked
Thought I'd pass on an excerpt from this week's Tuesday Morning Quarterback (see link to the left, or simply look on nfl.com) which shows the kind of thing commenators should be pointing out to you. It's these guys' JOB to watch football and tell you what's happening. DEMAND MORE!
The Panthers called a three-man rush. Marshall Faulk cut-blocked Carolina DE Mike Rucker, diving at him low; Rucker responded by jumping on top of Faulk. Brilliant play! Why? Watch Rams film and you will note Faulk often cut-blocks a DE to get underneath him while selling pass-blocking, then jumps up to catch a screen pass. Rucker knew this, and simply sat on Faulk so he couldn't get up. Marc Bulger just stood there holding the ball, wondering where Faulk has disappeared to. Carolina ended up with a sack that effectively ended the first half -- although with Rucker seated atop Faulk, at that point the Panthers had only two gentlemen rushing against five offensive linemen.
Input by Mike at
9:41 PM
