Achilles runs a gauntlet

Originally posted by FrothByte
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?

Sorry man, but overpedantism to discredit stuff is his schtick. Not saying you’re like him, just saying it is a tactic he likes to use 😛

Armor in film (like most things) are not portrayed the same as they are IRL. It is a common trope. They do not suddenly become paper armor because filmmakers often disregard to portray them exactly how they work IRL. They are portrayed as steel armor so they are, indeed steel armor and when we go on a VS battle we need to consider them as steel armor.

Wait, when did I portray armor as not armor? I’ve always thought armor was armor. IF we never debated about, it may be because it’s ever come up, but I HAVE debated armor effectiveness with someone (I think it was mountain and some GoT characters vs Wolverine) and I never questioned that armor was indeed armor.

Because it is a common trope. But it is still steel armor and thus we treat it as steel armor for the purpose of debate because I am sure you are not saying that the filmmakers were telling us that the armor is made of paper. IF you really want to be pedantic then let me ask you this: Has Aragorn’s armor been penetrated and cut up? IF not, then the “feats” argument has no leg to stand on as we do not share “feats” and showings of other characters/objects.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Sorry man, but overpedantism to discredit stuff is his schtick. Not saying you’re like him, just saying it is a tactic he likes to use 😛

Armor in film (like most things) are not portrayed the same as they are IRL. It is a common trope. They do not suddenly become paper armor because filmmakers often disregard to portray them exactly how they work IRL. They are portrayed as steel armor so they are, indeed steel armor and when we go on a VS battle we need to consider them as steel armor.

Wait, when did I portray armor as not armor? I’ve always thought armor was armor. IF we never debated about, it may be because it’s ever come up, but I HAVE debated armor effectiveness with someone (I think it was mountain and some GoT characters vs Wolverine) and I never questioned that armor was indeed armor.

Because it is a common trope. But it is still steel armor and thus we treat it as steel armor for the purpose of debate because I am sure you are not saying that the filmmakers were telling us that the armor is made of paper. IF you really want to be pedantic then let me ask you this: Has Aragorn’s armor been penetrated and cut up? IF not, then the “feats” argument has no leg to stand on as we do not share “feats” and showings of other characters/objects.

I DON'T want to be pedantic. Because if we do that then we might as well say that Achilles's armor can't get penetrated since it's only ever been scratched.

And yes, I know that useless armor is a very common Hollywood trope, which is why I never use armor effectiveness in these matchups except if said armor actually has some defensive feats (like some of the GOT armors) or at the very least don't have feats that completely make their durability look like crap.

TL,DR: If frying pans and rocks are effective against LOTR armor, I'm going to assume Achilles' sword is effective against them too.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I DON'T want to be pedantic. Because if we do that then we might as well say that Achilles's armor can't get penetrated since it's only ever been scratched.

And yes, I know that useless armor is a very common Hollywood trope, which is why I never use armor effectiveness in these matchups except if said armor actually has some defensive feats (like some of the GOT armors) or at the very least don't have feats that completely make their durability look like crap.

TL,DR: If frying pans and rocks are effective against LOTR armor, I'm going to assume Achilles' sword is effective against them too.

But the basis of your argument is to take inaccuracies literally. Even knowing that movies tend to make errors in portrayals of RL objects. That is actually worse. As it ignores the fact that movies aren’t real and depends on disregarding suspension of disbelief in its entirety. I really can’t get behind that.

Aragorn’s armor has no low showings that make its durability look like crap. As I said, if you’re going to go the pedantism route, go all the way else you won’t have a leg to stand on. As it is, Aragorn’s armor has no low “feats” for you to base your argument on.

Against CERTAIN armor (fodder) if we base it on your logic (that I strongly disagree with). Not Aragorn’s.

Edited for typo.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
But the basis of your argument is to take inaccuracies literally. Even knowing that movies tend to make errors in portrayals of RL objects. That is actually worse. As it ignores the fact that movies aren’t real and depends on disregarding suspension of disbelief in its entirety. I really can’t get behind that.

Aragorn’s armor has no low showings that make its durability look like crap. As I said, if you’re going to go the pedantism route, go all the way else you won’t have a leg to stand on. As it is, Aragorn’s armor has no low “feats” for you to base your argument on.

Against CERTAIN armor (fodder) if we base it on your logic (that I strongly disagree with). Not Aragorn’s.

Edited for typo.

No, the basis of my argument is to use feats to figure out what a character can and cannot do in these matches, instead of utilizing their real-world equivalent.

For example, I don't judge what Black Widow can or cannot do based on what real-world 120 pound female martial artists can or cannot do.

I am not ignoring the fact that movies aren't real. In fact, I'm specifically saying they're not real, and thus won't always be consistent with how real world objects behave.

Again, I mentioned specifically that I DON'T want to get pedantic. Because I don't want to slide down that slippery slope where we bicker about the types of armor and their materials, the different kinds of chainmail weaves, the kinds of tapering necessary for swordpoints to pierce through chainmail, etc.

Originally posted by FrothByte
No, the basis of my argument is to use feats to figure out what a character can and cannot do in these matches, instead of utilizing their real-world equivalent.

For example, I don't judge what Black Widow can or cannot do based on what real-world 120 pound female martial artists can or cannot do.

I am not ignoring the fact that movies aren't real. In fact, I'm specifically saying they're not real, and thus won't always be consistent with how real world objects behave.

Again, I mentioned specifically that I DON'T want to get pedantic. Because I don't want to slide down that slippery slope where we bicker about the types of armor and their materials, the different kinds of chainmail weaves, the kinds of tapering necessary for swordpoints to pierce through chainmail, etc.

By taking inaccuracies literally. Thus disregarding suspension of disbelief and the fact accuracy in filmmaking fictional movies quite often gives way to drama, cost, storytelling, etc. And these are not characters. These are objects that have direct equivalents in the real world. Answer this question: were the items portrayed as steel armor?

Because BW is a hypothetical character who is being explicitly portrayed (via stortelling) to be capable of the things she does. That is part of her character and is an integral to how the story is making the audience see her. Armor is not being told in stories to be useless, it’s just that filmmakers tend to suck at portraying it correctly. Just like everything from space explosions to gunfire to buildings being lifted tend not to be portrayed correctly. Story > details, meaning that we need to determine what the story is telling us FIRST then we can go ahead and nitpick the tiny details within the context of the story.

If you do not want to be pendantic, then don’t be pedantic. But if you are, then you need to take it to its absolute point as that is what being pedantic is. You cannot just be only be as pedantic as you want in order to serve your own argument. Me? I’ll take the obvious nuance of how movies aren’t real and I will apply suspension of disbelief to excuse common tropes like the uselessness of most armor in film. I will, however, also accept that the story is telling me that those are indeed plate armor as there was never any indication that they were anything but plate armor so I will treat them as plate armor in debates.

Plus do you have any rebuttal on the fact that you have no showings on Aragorn’s armor and the fact that you cannot share “feats”? In RL or in fiction not all armor and weapons and wearers are created equal. At the very least you need to concede this point.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
By taking inaccuracies literally. Thus disregarding suspension of disbelief and the fact accuracy in filmmaking fictional movies quite often gives way to drama, cost, storytelling, etc. And these are not characters. These are objects that have direct equivalents in the real world. Answer this question: were the items portrayed as steel armor?

Because BW is a hypothetical character who is being explicitly portrayed (via stortelling) to be capable of the things she does. That is part of her character and is an integral to how the story is making the audience see her. Armor is not being told in stories to be useless, it’s just that filmmakers tend to suck at portraying it correctly. Just like everything from space explosions to gunfire to buildings being lifted tend not to be portrayed correctly. Story > details, meaning that we need to determine what the story is telling us FIRST then we can go ahead and nitpick the tiny details within the context of the story.

If you do not want to be pendantic, then don’t be pedantic. But if you are, then you need to take it to its absolute point as that is what being pedantic is. You cannot just be only be as pedantic as you want in order to serve your own argument. Me? I’ll take the obvious nuance of how movies aren’t real and I will apply suspension of disbelief to excuse common tropes like the uselessness of most armor in film. I will, however, also accept that the story is telling me that those are indeed plate armor as there was never any indication that they were anything but plate armor so I will treat them as plate armor in debates.

Plus do you have any rebuttal on the fact that you have no showings on Aragorn’s armor and the fact that you cannot share “feats”? In RL or in fiction not all armor and weapons and wearers are created equal. At the very least you need to concede this point.

To answer your question: No, the items were not portrayed as steel armor. They were portrayed as metal armor, but we're unsure what kind of metal. Could be iron, could be bronze, could be steel. And if steel, what kind of steel? Cold rolled steel is massively different durability-wise to tempered steel which again is different from stainless steel.

And this is what I'm saying: I choose not get to bogged down by details such as these.

"BW is a hypothetical character who is being explicitly portrayed (via stortelling) to be capable of the things she does".

I could say the same thing for the LOTR armors. Their armors are hypothetical equipment which were explicitly portrayed as being incapable of stopping a sword slash. I am not saying armor is useless, I'm saying armor in the LOTR universe isn't capable of stopping a sword cut or sword slash.

Dude, stop with the pedantic talk already. I mentioned it because that's what you were doing, so I gave an example of what it would sound like if I tried to do the same (as in discussing different materials and types of armor and weapons). I don't want to do it. So if you dont' want to do it then just drop it.

As for a rebuttal of Aragorn's armor, this is what I have to say: No limits fallacy. Just because we don't see it getting wrecked doesn't mean it can't get wrecked. Because I can use the exact same logic for Achilles' armor. In any case, I'm not convinced that's the version of armor we should use for Aragorn, as he seldom fought in it. I mean, I'm fine if that's the ruling, but it would be nice if OP specified it first.

Originally posted by FrothByte
To answer your question: No, the items were not portrayed as steel armor. They were portrayed as metal armor, but we're unsure what kind of metal. Could be iron, could be bronze, could be steel. And if steel, what kind of steel? Cold rolled steel is massively different durability-wise to tempered steel which again is different from stainless steel.

And this is what I'm saying: I choose not get to bogged down by details such as these.

"BW is a hypothetical character who is being explicitly portrayed (via stortelling) to be capable of the things she does".

I could say the same thing for the LOTR armors. Their armors are hypothetical equipment which were explicitly portrayed as being incapable of stopping a sword slash. I am not saying armor is useless, I'm saying armor in the LOTR universe isn't capable of stopping a sword cut or sword slash.

Dude, stop with the pedantic talk already. I mentioned it because that's what you were doing, so I gave an example of what it would sound like if I tried to do the same (as in discussing different materials and types of armor and weapons). I don't want to do it. So if you dont' want to do it then just drop it.

As for a rebuttal of Aragorn's armor, this is what I have to say: No limits fallacy. Just because we don't see it getting wrecked doesn't mean it can't get wrecked. Because I can use the exact same logic for Achilles' armor. In any case, I'm not convinced that's the version of armor we should use for Aragorn, as he seldom fought in it. I mean, I'm fine if that's the ruling, but it would be nice if OP specified it first.

See? This is pedanticsm only when it serves your argument. It is obvious they are steel and if you want to see the techniques they used in forging, it will most likely be tempered steel. What are you trying to say here? Are you saying steel does not exist in the LoTR universe?

You are being pedantic only so long as it serves your argument. I cannot believe you do not see it. And your logic is awful, weapons and armor (and those that wear them and those who attack them) are not created equal, you cannot apply one rule for all just because some perform poorly.

No they are not portrayed specifically that way by the story. Seriously, you acknowledge the existence of the filmmaking armor trope yet suddenly seem to forget what a trope is at this moment. Armor being portrayed poorly in movies DOES NOT indicate that the story is telling us explicitly that all armor is useless. Read the trope on the logic behind the trope please and why it is constantly being used in filmmaking. A character using a pistol and spraying 100 bullets (another trope) without reloading doesn’t mean that he either has magic bullet powers or that guns in his universe has a 100 bullet mag capacity. It’s a trope, the guns are not magical bottomless bullet devices in 80’s action world. And ppl would think you’re crazy if you start arguing this during a debate. Seriously. Think about where this logic is taking you.

But you are still doing it. But only applying enough of it as to serve your argument.

/facepalm Duuuuude. I personally can’t believe I’m reading this coming from you.... I never claimed that his armor was invincible. I claimed that you cannot attribute the low showings of others and their armor armor to him and his armor. Thus we default to it being what it is being portrayed. Steel armor. Apply the same to Achilles’ armor and we get consistent and sensible logic applied allthroughout. And don’t we go by most recent showings? Thus he would have Anduril and he would have the armor he used in the final battle.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
See? This is pedanticsm only when it serves your argument. It is obvious they are steel and if you want to see the techniques they used in forging, it will most likely be tempered steel. What are you trying to say here? Are you saying steel does not exist in the LoTR universe?

You are being pedantic only so long as it serves your argument. I cannot believe you do not see it. And your logic is awful, weapons and armor (and those that wear them and those who attack them) are not created equal, you cannot apply one rule for all just because some perform poorly.

No they are not portrayed specifically that way by the story. Seriously, you acknowledge the existence of the filmmaking armor trope yet suddenly seem to forget what a trope is at this moment. Armor being portrayed poorly in movies DOES NOT indicate that the story is telling us explicitly that all armor is useless. Read the trope on the logic behind the trope please and why it is constantly being used in filmmaking. A character using a pistol and spraying 100 bullets (another trope) without reloading doesn’t mean that he either has magic bullet powers or that guns in his universe has a 100 bullet mag capacity. It’s a trope, the guns are not magical bottomless bullet devices in 80’s action world. And ppl would think you’re crazy if you start arguing this during a debate. Seriously. Think about where this logic is taking you.

But you are still doing it. But only applying enough of it as to serve your argument.

/facepalm Duuuuude. I personally can’t believe I’m reading this coming from you.... I never claimed that his armor was invincible. I claimed that you cannot attribute the low showings of others and their armor armor to him and his armor. Thus we default to it being what it is being portrayed. Steel armor. Apply the same to Achilles’ armor and we get consistent and sensible logic applied allthroughout. And don’t we go by most recent showings? Thus he would have Anduril and he would have the armor he used in the final battle.

Ok Nib, you you need to back off with your passive aggressive insults. I'm trying my best to explain my side here and if you don't agree with my reasoning then fine, but you could at least extend to me the same cordiality I'm extending you.

To answer your points, yes I acknowledge that different armors made for different people will have different properties... but only to a certain extent. When pretty much every single non-magical armor in the LOTR universe is unable to stop a sword slash, why do you all of a sudden want to give Aragorn's armor special attributes? Wouldn't common sense dictate that his armor, though seemingly of finer make, shouldn't be that far off from pretty much every armor shown on screen? Unless of course you claim that his armor is magical, then that's a different conversation.

As for pedantism, you're the only one who's being pedantic. The differences in metal is not something I would have brought up if you didn't ask it of me. So don't blame me for being pedantic when I only did so in order to answer your questions.

It's obvious you're not going to budge on this topic (and getting more aggressive as we progress) so I won't pursue the discussion further. But I'll leave you with a summary of my thoughts:

We both agree that armor is inaccurately portrayed in majority of movies. We both agree that movie armors don't seem to afford the protection real armor should. So I'm completely confused why you all of a sudden want to use real world armor physics for these matchups when we're discussing movie characters in a movie versus forum.

Armor shouldnt really matter as Anduril will definitely be super effective against Achilles bronze age armor. Since its magic and enchanted to not ever break, get dull or show blood.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Ok Nib, you you need to back off with your passive aggressive insults. I'm trying my best to explain my side here and if you don't agree with my reasoning then fine, but you could at least extend to me the same cordiality I'm extending you.

To answer your points, yes I acknowledge that different armors made for different people will have different properties... but only to a certain extent. When pretty much every single non-magical armor in the LOTR universe is unable to stop a sword slash, why do you all of a sudden want to give Aragorn's armor special attributes? Wouldn't common sense dictate that his armor, though seemingly of finer make, shouldn't be that far off from pretty much every armor shown on screen? Unless of course you claim that his armor is magical, then that's a different conversation.

As for pedantism, you're the only one who's being pedantic. The differences in metal is not something I would have brought up if you didn't ask it of me. So don't blame me for being pedantic when I only did so in order to answer your questions.

It's obvious you're not going to budge on this topic (and getting more aggressive as we progress) so I won't pursue the discussion further. But I'll leave you with a summary of my thoughts:

We both agree that armor is inaccurately portrayed in majority of movies. We both agree that movie armors don't seem to afford the protection real armor should. So I'm completely confused why you all of a sudden want to use real world armor physics for these matchups when we're discussing movie characters in a movie versus forum.

I was seriously trying not trying to be passive aggressively insulting there. Just genuinely shocked that this logic is coming from you. I’ll try to be a bit gentler on what I say if it’s coming out wrong. But in all honesty I genuinely feel that you are just picking and choosing where you apply pedantism and I caution you moving in this path because these are thing someone like h1 would latch onto and use on you the second an argument starts going against him. I am honestly shocked that you are not seeing the flaw in your logic.

You are basing your logic on fodder characters who got hit with sword slashes and not named characters and their equipment. While completely ignoring that actual storytelling mediums (specific character statements during Two Towers Battle of Helm’s Deep) were used to establish that armor is in fact, effective. I am not giving his armor “special properties”. Quite the opposite, I am stating that the armor maintain the qualities of its RL equivalent. Because there is nothing in the story explicitly telling us that the armor in their world doesn’t work. And your entire foundation is simply basing it on the low showings of other character’s armor.

You are the one attributing low showings of fodder armor and giving it to him as a “special quality” while disregarding the fact that it is a known, well established and well documented filmmaking trope: An instance where something is inaccurately done on purpose in favor of drama/cost/pacing/etc.

And you skipped a few of my questions: Does a standard pistol from an 80s hero suddenly have 100 rounds in it? Do explosions in 80s movies have no pressure wave (so any weapons like RPGs or bombs exploding where the hero survives be suddenly judged based on that showing and not on the fact that absurdities are often done in filmmaking in favor storytelling/drama/etc.)? Do cars in action movies naturally explode when shot? Where do we draw the line?

I’m not trying to be aggresive dude. I mean, honestly. I am genuinely shocked at the line of reasoning you are taking.

How is “accept details such as the armor they are using at face value” being pedantic? That’s literally taking things as they are and not nitpicking. Just being conscious of all important factors in a fight (because equipment makes a HUGE difference). You then bring up things like “well armor feats only” and “we don’t know it’s steel”.

We both agree that armor are portrayed badly in movies. But we disagree on the relevance. In order to argue hypothetical characters/world/etc in good faith, we need to differentiate unrealism that is part of the story from unrealism because there are either limitations to filmmaking technology or the filmmakers “bent” accuracy a bit due to cost/drama/pacing/story/etc.

I agree with Nibe (about real objects). but Froth does have a point about that we have no knowledge of what Aragorn`s is made of. So we can't apply real world physics to it, we must use feats.

So the question is, does his armor have feats of resisting penetration?
If not then it is unknown.

Just to be clear, you're now arguing that feats trump writer's intent?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I was seriously trying not trying to be passive aggressively insulting there. Just genuinely shocked that this logic is coming from you. I’ll try to be a bit gentler on what I say if it’s coming out wrong. But in all honesty I genuinely feel that you are just picking and choosing where you apply pedantism and I caution you moving in this path because these are thing someone like h1 would latch onto and use on you the second an argument starts going against him. I am honestly shocked that you are not seeing the flaw in your logic.

You are basing your logic on fodder characters who got hit with sword slashes and not named characters and their equipment. While completely ignoring that actual storytelling mediums (specific character statements during Two Towers Battle of Helm’s Deep) were used to establish that armor is in fact, effective. I am not giving his armor “special properties”. Quite the opposite, I am stating that the armor maintain the qualities of its RL equivalent. Because there is nothing in the story explicitly telling us that the armor in their world doesn’t work. And your entire foundation is simply basing it on the low showings of other character’s armor.

You are the one attributing low showings of fodder armor and giving it to him as a “special quality” while disregarding the fact that it is a known, well established and well documented filmmaking trope: An instance where something is inaccurately done on purpose in favor of drama/cost/pacing/etc.

And you skipped a few of my questions: Does a standard pistol from an 80s hero suddenly have 100 rounds in it? Do explosions in 80s movies have no pressure wave (so any weapons like RPGs or bombs exploding where the hero survives be suddenly judged based on that showing and not on the fact that absurdities are often done in filmmaking in favor storytelling/drama/etc.)? Do cars in action movies naturally explode when shot? Where do we draw the line?

I’m not trying to be aggresive dude. I mean, honestly. I am genuinely shocked at the line of reasoning you are taking.

How is “accept details such as the armor they are using at face value” being pedantic? That’s literally taking things as they are and not nitpicking. Just being conscious of all important factors in a fight (because equipment makes a HUGE difference). You then bring up things like “well armor feats only” and “we don’t know it’s steel”.

We both agree that armor are portrayed badly in movies. But we disagree on the relevance. In order to argue hypothetical characters/world/etc in good faith, we need to differentiate unrealism that is part of the story from unrealism because there are either limitations to filmmaking technology or the filmmakers “bent” accuracy a bit due to cost/drama/pacing/story/etc.

Technically, it is not considered "low showings" if they're the ONLY showings. So I'll extend an olive branch: show me a feat of any LOTR armor effectively deflecting a sword slash or thrust. It can be armor worn by fodder or a special character or whatever as long as it's not magical armor or mithril.

If you can show me a feat like this then I will retract my statement. Otherwise, your entire argument is completely unsupported by feats. I know there was mention that Orcs had weak spots in their armor, but that still doesn't equal a feat where their armor actually proved effective against swords... any sword.

As for your bullets example, no I don't expect movie characters here to have unlimited bullets just because they seemed to in the movies but neither do I get so pedantic as to start counting the available bullets to them.

In the same way, I don't assume movie armor is so useless that even a dining fork can puncture it but neither do I get nitpicky about what type of metal trumps another kind of metal UNLESS there are specific feats to support it.

As far as I'm concerned featwise, Achilles' sword has clashed against other swords, shields, lopped off the head of a stone/marble statue and had no problems puncturing Hector's armor (which didn't look like it was made of bronze).

Aragorn's armor has no valid feats of deflection as well, so common sense dictates we compare it to other armors shown in LOTR wherein none of them have been shown to deflect a sword slash or thrust.

So I'm going to assume both Achilles and Aragorn can cut through each other's armor with their swords. I'm not going to attribute an advantage to Aragorn which is not supported by feats.

And just to add: Achilles' armor actually has feats of being protective. His shin guard was able to deflect Hector's sword and his breastplate only received a very light scratch from Hector's slash. Admittedly it was a weak slash but still, it's something.

Of course, I'm not saying Aragorn can't get through that armor. Just thought I'd point it out.

After the shit Legolas was doing in the Hobbit trilogies...yeah, he's gonna beat Achilles.

Also lol@ Blade being here.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Just to be clear, you're now arguing that feats trump writer's intent?

In other words, Prove that is writer's intent that the armor is made of steel and not some weaker type of metal. Otherwise, we don't know.

I find it kind of funny to think that some of you had to sit thru a Rewatch of this BoreCrapFest to be able to debate in this thread...

Wow you guys care to much about nothing at all, honestly who gives a fck?

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Wow you guys care to much about nothing at all, honestly who gives a fck?

YouTube video

Originally posted by FrothByte
Technically, it is not considered "low showings" if they're the ONLY showings. So I'll extend an olive branch: show me a feat of any LOTR armor effectively deflecting a sword slash or thrust. It can be armor worn by fodder or a special character or whatever as long as it's not magical armor or mithril.

If you can show me a feat like this then I will retract my statement. Otherwise, your entire argument is completely unsupported by feats. I know there was mention that Orcs had weak spots in their armor, but that still doesn't equal a feat where their armor actually proved effective against swords... any sword.

As for your bullets example, no I don't expect movie characters here to have unlimited bullets just because they seemed to in the movies but neither do I get so pedantic as to start counting the available bullets to them.

In the same way, I don't assume movie armor is so useless that even a dining fork can puncture it but neither do I get nitpicky about what type of metal trumps another kind of metal UNLESS there are specific feats to support it.

As far as I'm concerned featwise, Achilles' sword has clashed against other swords, shields, lopped off the head of a stone/marble statue and had no problems puncturing Hector's armor (which didn't look like it was made of bronze).

Aragorn's armor has no valid feats of deflection as well, so common sense dictates we compare it to other armors shown in LOTR wherein none of them have been shown to deflect a sword slash or thrust.

So I'm going to assume both Achilles and Aragorn can cut through each other's armor with their swords. I'm not going to attribute an advantage to Aragorn which is not supported by feats.

Again, you are applying the low showings of OTHER characters’ armor, essentially fodder characters and applying to a named character that has not gotten hit. Ignoring the fact that it is common practice for filmmakers to actually disregard/bend accuracy for the sake of story/pace/cost/etc. Well technically he did get hit but it was hard to tell if it was a slashing attack (Troll struck him and sent him flying, but it is unclear what kind of hit it was exactly but the SFX was definitely metal on metal (https://youtu.be/17_ImViPryQ) @ (4:30) and it was definitely the troll’s weapon if you slowmo, he caught Aragorn on the upswing). But I don’t have to show you “feats” of other characters. You need to show me showings of the specific armor in question that makes you think it’ll be ineffective. No sharing of “feats” and showings.

I don’t have to support it by “feats”, as with the absence of “feats” that is still steel armor and it will have the same qualities (within reason) as steel armor and will default as steel armor until proven otherwise. Do we ask for building weight “feats” when someone lifts something? Do we ask for weight/hardness “feats” for the rock Kurse used to throw at Thor? No. We take it as it is and it defaults to reasonable real world estimates. Using that line of argument would make debates degenerate into feat pedantism and nothing will ever get done.

So disregard certain tropes and inaccuracies but take others literally? What makes the bullet thing any different a trope as the armor thing? Both have filmmaking reasons why they’re used. But one quality applies and the other does not? I mean hypothetically if I made a thread about “typical 80s hero” who is armed with a standard pistol with no magazines against 20 opponents what then? Give him unlimited ammo? Count the number of ammo the gun would have? What then?

So it is only as effective as you want it to be? Since you insist that there be no established benchmark, then I guess we should just assume that steel armor is just over fork level but below sword level? How does this work? And Leather and steel armor would be what? Just effective/ineffective? Until “feats” say otherwise? We should accept that as a standard? Guess we can make LotR armies fight Xerxes armies and not worry about the HUGE weapon/armor tech difference and just completely ignore the fact that one side has armor and the other doesn’t. I mean since Xerxes’ armies are not carrying forks, then I guess the LoTR armor is useless. You can see how badly that logic would fail given many applications while my logic would make scenarios like this workable.

If you mean the statue of Apollo. That was a gold statue, not a stone/marble one. Hey look, I never said that Achilles’ weapon were useless. I just doubt how well it would do against superior armor tech made of superior metal. I already acknowledged that a full spear throw at max force would likely penetrate but spear thrusts and sword slashes tho? Vs layers of plate+chain+gambeson? I have my doubts. The fight won’t be Aragorn standing still, he will block/parry and maneuver around. He’s not a slouch as a fighter. I believe that Aragorn could parry/block/avoid direct full power hits (as will Achilles) and that the fight will have them doing minor cuts/slashes against each other (Achilles will land more and better hits of course) in a battle of attrition. That is why the armor plays such a huge role.

Achilles will win in speed/skill but Aragorn offsets this difference with superior tech. That was my whole argument. Oh, and I never said Aragorn wins for certain. That is why I posted Legolas/Aragorn (meaning that I’m split between Aragorn and Achilles).

“Feats” are not be all end all. Especially since we USE real world equivalents as benchmarks to quantify “feats”. That in itself is telling you that reality (where it applies and is not explicitly contradicted by story) has a strong value in determining what something is capable of and we cannot disregard this.

The problem I have with your logic is that it causes a TON of problems when applied to different hypothetical scenarios (see above), is subjective in its application and ignores the fact that we do not share “feats” and showings.

Originally posted by FrothByte
And just to add: Achilles' armor actually has feats of being protective. His shin guard was able to deflect Hector's sword and his breastplate only received a very light scratch from Hector's slash. Admittedly it was a weak slash but still, it's something.

Of course, I'm not saying Aragorn can't get through that armor. Just thought I'd point it out.

Well, that tells us that Achilles’ armor works as armor should. That doesn’t change anything, though.