Never have seen Spartacus, my friends. Leonidas gives him a run for his money, but Achilles proves too much.
End of trilogy Aragorn dueled an armored cave troll with a giant sword. Strider was blocking blows and withstood being stood on by the troll. He is too much for Brad Pitt.
Stops at either Aragorn or Legolas due to weapon and armor tech differences as I’m assuming Achilles will be running with Iron/Bronze/leather armor/weapons.
Achilles’ advantage comes from his spear/shield combo but I don’t know if his spear can pierce thru chain and plate mail.
His spear throwing ability was world-renowned, he threw a spear like a football field, hit and killed its intended target. With that much force behind it, it no doubt can go through chain mail. It was so influential, Hector was crying about it to his wife the night before his death that he had never seen a spear thrown that far.
Armor was pretty useless in the LOTR movies anyway unless they were magical. Pretty much every sword or knife cut through them like they were cardboard. In one of the hobbit movies, I remember a fully armored orc getting knocked out by a frying pan despite getting hit on his helm.
I agree a full direct from a spear throw would pierce the armor considering what Achilles has been able to do with the spear. I was meaning more on the melee range damage using spear jabs and thrusts. But that is a good point.
I do agree about the bad armor physics that is prevalent in almost all movies (ppl being able to pierce plate+chain+gambeson and straight thru the other side with a sword is pretty much impossible). But do we suddenly discount the fact that those ARE plate+chain+gambeson armor and just assume they are made of paper? Not sure I like that line of reasoning. Especially since we KNOW how effective these types of armor are within the real world. If anything, you are better off arguing that the weapons or the ppl using said weapons were strong enough to succeed at inflicting damage even though armor what they do than assuming armor is useless.
Also, it was mentioned quite a few times how effective armor was (although in character statements) such as prior to the battle of Helm’s Deep (they were talking about how thick Uruk armor was and how they should aim for the neck or below the arms).
I would have said the same thing if it wasn't for Legolas's final fight with Bolg. Though it showed great strength on the elf's part, it also made him seem slower and less skilled than he ought to be. He should have theoretically been able to dance around Bolg and easily land multiple strikes on him.
As far as I'm concerned, unless said armor actually has feats to show they're effective then I'm perfectly fine discounting it. We base stuff on feats after all. In the the battle of 5 armies, civilians throwing rocks were easily able to knockout orcs in full armor... so it wasn't just their weapons that had that ability.
In any case, is heavy armor standard for Aragorn? He seemed to be dressed in minimal armor for majority of the films. Besides, we don't really know what kind of metal was used in Achilles' weapons. We assume it's bronze because he was of that age but there was no mention of that in the movies, neither do I recall the LOTR movies stating that Aragorn had steel weapons.
Bolg had to look good. He was Azog's son and was fighting tge most OP guy in the movie. Just viewing his river scene, dancing on falling rocks, and the stuff he did against the giant monsters put's Legolas on a level Achilles can't hope to match. If anything Bolg is just an extremely high level Orc whose powerful enough to do well against an Elf of Legolas' caliber and below.
All of the named weapons were extremely sharp and sturdy as they were made of Mithril and other fantasy metals. And unless otherwise stated we should assume Achilles weapons were of the same grade as the time period his story is from. Also Aragorn's sword Andúril is enchanted to never be broken or stained with blood.
Like I said, you cannot ignore the fact that those are standard armor (with a few design differences) but metal is metal. Just because a movie uses physics badly doesn’t mean we ignore that steel is in fact steel. Just because bullets bounce off windshields in some movies doesn’t mean all bullets from that universe are shit. They are still bullets and we need to argue that they are indeed bullets if someone gets shot with them. There is enough real world examples of how armor works for us to suddenly disregard how armor works in real life. It would be different if those were hypothetical items, they are not. Rocks that don’t behave like rocks are still rocks, buildings that don’t crumble under their own weight are still buildings and not styrofoam.
I feel like we go by most recent versions? Last armor he wore was breastplate with chain skirt and steel bracers with chain shirt and a gambeson.
According to this source (https://www.ancient.eu/Trojan_War/), Trojan War happened around the late Bronze age or around 13th or 12th Century BC. Correct me if I’m wrong but that would mean mostly bronze/leather/iron. Why do we assume that Achilles would have steel weapons when the era he was in didn’t have it?
The process of making chainmail and plate armor did no exist til much later. And the weapons/armor they were wearing weren’t available during bronze/iron age techniques and I don’t even think it’s possible to make them using the processes available during those ages. Also, the process of tempering/forging that the elves used is the process used for steel weapons and not bronze age/iron ones (w/c uses casts IIRC).
Last edited by Nibedicus on Jan 29th, 2019 at 09:28 PM
If we applied real world physics to armor here in the MvF, then majority of sword fights here would be almost useless when done against people in armor. We can't pick and choose just this match to apply real world armor physics to. As far as I can tell, we have never done this on any other match here. Why only do so here?
And if we wanted to do so, then Aragorn's sword would also have a hard time penetrating Achilles armor assuming that it's stiffened leather + iron.
And if we really wanted to be pedantic about it, then we can't know that Aragorn's equipment is steel since he doesn't live on our Earth, doesn't follow our Earth's timeline or history, so the development of metal could have been different for them.
This is a slippery slope to be on... which is why we should simply base it on feats.
Because we’re not talking about applying real world physics on hypothetical objects. We are applying real world physics on real world objects and using said objects as benchmarks. These armor (or armor like them) exist in real life so we base their capabilities on how they would do in real life as a basis for determining the effectiveness of the hypotheticals. And of course we do this type of logic in a lot of matches. I just gave examples where. A movie where they don’t get bullets right does not mean we suddenly do not consider all bullets from that movie universe as real bullets because “showings”, you can imagine how bad debates would degenerate if we start using pendantism to try to discredit a “feat” because the objects they were based against did not behave as they normally would IRL. It is very common for armor to be shown incorrectly in film, happens quite a bit, does not mean most movie armor is made of paper. Armor is armor. This logic is not absolute of course, there will be exceptions. But this is definitely is not one of those times.
Sure you can argue that Achilles’ armor is hard to get thru even for a steel sword because of its composition. I have no problems with that.
And why be pedantic? This seems really out of character for you to start using h1 tactics on a debate. Suspension of disbelief would tell us that a lot of the LoTR world and characters and items were based on medieval technology from our world. We don’t suddenly assume that their steel armor is made of paper because the portrayal for armor in film tends to be incorrect.
No, the slippery slope is basing everything on movie “feats”, even for objects that clearly exist IRL (and thus are quantifiable IRL). This creates the possibility of everyone disregarding every quantification and research available to us and force us to make precise calcs on everything that would normally not need calcs (as they exist IRL). Filmakers get portrayals of real world items wrong quite often and many times they even do so intentionally for the sake of drama, story, cost or pacing. It’s so common that it’s actually a trope: (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki..../ArmorIsUseless).You use suspension of disbelief to disregard the inaccuracies and focus more on what the story is trying to tell you first and foremost. It is obvious that the story is telling us those are real plate/chainmail armor. The story is not telling us the armor is functionally made of paper. Come on man.
Likening me to h1? Come now man, that's a low blow.
I don't have problems applying real world physics to real world objects... IF said objects behaved like their real world counterparts in the movies. Unfortunately in this case, they don't.
If we were to start treating movie armor like real world armor then we should have been doing so for every single match here in the mvf... and I don't recall neither you nor me doing that.
Anyway, I don't know how else to say this plainly. The armors we've seen in the LOTR movies were easily getting cut up by every single sword, spear and arrow that got in contact with them. They were even defeated by rocks and frying pans. So it's pretty clear that real world armor doesn't match the armor that we see in the movies, yet all of a sudden you want to gimp Achilles by applying real world armor?
KMC Community Forums
Jan 27th, 2019 01:27 AM
