243 réponses à ce sujet

[vehzeel]

Brynnlaw? Someone have been playing Baldur's Gate 2....

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I think Rivian is the most interesting place. It apparently does have a king I think, but I get the sense that most of the power is in the hands of the matriarchs of each local community. There is an Andrastian population but they are mixed in with the local Rivani pantheist relgion and the Rivaini version of the Qun. The Chantry presence is mostly concentrated in the capital of Dairsmuid. World of Thedas says Rivaini nobility are all Andrastian faithful. The Qunari live mostly in the north of the country.

In a lot of ways it reminds me of Lebanon, but that's my personal perspective coming through. I'm not sure it was patterned by the devs on Lebanon. It's population is deivided along sectarian lines and it often finds itself at the mercy of influence from outsiders (the Qunari, the Chantry, the Raiders of the Waking Sea).

[EmperorSahlertz]

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

Emperor for all we know mages can shoot their magic as far as they can see because we dont know what the effective range is of a mage so saying something like this makes you look look like an idiot. Also mages do nt adhere to the rules of physics so comparing them to something that does makes you even look like even a greater fool.
what is known however is that in every single major exalted march and blight the mages played a major role in them. Their is not a single note about the templars. And yet you claim they do? headfaction doesnt count bucko get proof next time.

Last I checked there was a range limit on spells in all the games. Since that is all we have to go on, and since mages are never explicitly stated as outranging artillery, that is what seems to go then. Of coruse, if you feel so enlightened, then please do share EXACTLY where it states that mages can throw cast their magical spells for several hundred meters.
And no, mages don't follow OUR world's laws of physics. They do however follow a very strict set of magical laws in the world of Thedas. For instance teleportation is impossible. So certain things are going to be impossible for mages. For instancem untill shown otherwise, they are going to be outranged by artillery.

And I wasn't talking about the Exalted Marches. I was talking about what Alistair says, and a few others have stated in codex entries and the World of Thedas. Considering Alistair trained with the Templars, and he says that they are an ARMY, I'd say that I trust his judgement on the matter.

If you are going to call bull**** in the future, do please try and check the facts first. Otherwise YOU are going to look the fool. Just a reminder for future post you are probably gonna make.

And in those games archers can only fire at their foes at 15 meters. so plz keep gameplay out of this. And yes magic does have rules (which keeps constantly broken btw) but their is not a single bit of information what the limitations are when it comes to the range of magic. Right now your just making stuff up glorifying the templars who had no impact on these events. And yes the templars are an army but are they an army that is suited for conventional warfare. The answer is no as they are to expensive and not trained to do so.

Except that archers can actually shoot as long as their LoS is in both games... Otherwise you are spot on.. That is, you missed completely... Again... (nevermind that accuracy with a bow is usually limtied to around 50-100 meters anyway, anything more and the shot becomes unreliable and the bow is etter used in masse formation at this point)

And exactly who here is making stuff up? YOU are the one claiming that Templars are not conditioned for battlefield warfare, and you are basing this off of NOTHING, whereas I actually used established lore and comments from different in-game sources to back up my claim. You are really gonna have to try harder.

And this is not about "glorifying Templars" this is about saying taht they serve an important purpose in an eventual fight with Tevinter. You are the pathetic fool, who keeps hating on the Templars no matter what theoretical situation is being discussed. Basically you are contributing NOTHING to the discussion, since you are intend on using your own useless prejudice and headcanon as some sort of indisputable proof of your claims, even though we ahve in-game sources stating the EXACT opposite of what you claim.

And yes indeed Templars are probably expensive to train. But guess what, most elite fighting forces are extremely expensive to train. That doesn't mean you won't use them, just because you are afraid of losing money. As a matter of fact, NOT using them would be a lost investment. Of course you wouldn't insert them into a straight up slugfest with the enemy, that is not how you use elite forces. They are spearheads, and anti-mage fighters. use them to their and yours advantage. So all of this of course means that you are again wrong.

[Vulpe]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And in those games archers can only fire at their foes at 15 meters. so plz keep gameplay out of this. And yes magic does have rules (which keeps constantly broken btw) but their is not a single bit of information what the limitations are when it comes to the range of magic.

Mages seem to cover that distance and even more ( in the comics ). I might add that I don't think that the dispell thing works on already casted spelles that are something like a projectile (ex: firebolts,lighninghbolts). Unless they are sustained spells ( ex: hexes, flame blast, buffs ) , I doubt that a templars can dispell a firebold that rushes to their position in mid air. I think that the best they can do is to use their power so that they would diminish some of its damage when it makes contact with them.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And exactly who here is making stuff up? YOU are the one claiming that Templars are not conditioned for battlefield warfare, and you are basing this off of NOTHING, whereas I actually used established lore and comments from different in-game sources to back up my claim. You are really gonna have to try harder.

And this is not about "glorifying Templars" this is about saying taht they serve an important purpose in an eventual fight with Tevinter. You are the pathetic fool, who keeps hating on the Templars no matter what theoretical situation is being discussed. Basically you are contributing NOTHING to the discussion, since you are intend on using your own useless prejudice and headcanon as some sort of indisputable proof of your claims, even though we ahve in-game sources stating the EXACT opposite of what you claim.

And yes indeed Templars are probably expensive to train. But guess what, most elite fighting forces are extremely expensive to train. That doesn't mean you won't use them, just because you are afraid of losing money. As a matter of fact, NOT using them would be a lost investment. Of course you wouldn't insert them into a straight up slugfest with the enemy, that is not how you use elite forces. They are spearheads, and anti-mage fighters. use them to their and yours advantage. So all of this of course means that you are again wrong.

While I belive that they are very capable warriors, I don't see them fightning in any wars that are not Exalted Marches or against forces that are enemies to all of Thedas ( ex: darkspawn ). I can't see the templars from Ferelden fighting against an orlesian invasion. I can see them only as remaining neutral or even betraying Ferelden if the Divine wishes so.

Also, it would be unwise to send all the templars in a war. Some mages will remain unatended and if all of the templars are killed, I doubt that the rookies that might take their place would do a great job.

Modifié par JulianWellpit, 10 décembre 2013 - 08:29 .

[iOnlySignIn]

By your logic San Marino has been the most powerful nation in Europe for more than a millenium.

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 10 décembre 2013 - 08:36 .

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


Except that archers can actually shoot as long as their LoS is in both games... Otherwise you are spot on.. That is, you missed completely... Again... (nevermind that accuracy with a bow is usually limtied to around 50-100 meters anyway, anything more and the shot becomes unreliable and the bow is etter used in masse formation at this point)

From the comic its clear that the mages not only severely outrange bows but they seem to be extremely accurate. not that mages need to be accurate giving that they use AOE attacks

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
And exactly who here is making stuff up? YOU are the one claiming that Templars are not conditioned for battlefield warfare, and you are basing this off of NOTHING, whereas I actually used established lore and comments from different in-game sources to back up my claim. You are really gonna have to try harder.

Because thats how they are trained. they are trained to hunt down and kill mages in small groups (that does make them suited for guerrilla warfare however). and after that its guard duty. So most of them have never seen any serious man to man combat.  its simple observations.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
And this is not about "glorifying Templars" this is about saying taht they serve an important purpose in an eventual fight with Tevinter. You are the pathetic fool, who keeps hating on the Templars no matter what theoretical situation is being discussed. Basically you are contributing NOTHING to the discussion, since you are intend on using your own useless prejudice and headcanon as some sort of indisputable proof of your claims, even though we ahve in-game sources stating the EXACT opposite of what you claim.

Your claims that templars played a vital part in keeping the tevinters in check is laugable. their is not a single scrap of information on how well the templars served during the blights or the exalted marches.
Their is plenty of information that the circle played a vital role in blights and exalted marches. And as somebody already said : mages are a force multiplier. the one that has the most mages win.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
And yes indeed Templars are probably expensive to train. But guess what, most elite fighting forces are extremely expensive to train. That doesn't mean you won't use them, just because you are afraid of losing money. As a matter of fact, NOT using them would be a lost investment. Of course you wouldn't insert them into a straight up slugfest with the enemy, that is not how you use elite forces. They are spearheads, and anti-mage fighters. use them to their and yours advantage. So all of this of course means that you are again wrong.

The templars are not an elite forces. The average tevinter soldier is a veteran because of the constant warfare between the tevinters and the qunuari. so your spearhead will be througly smashed by the tevinters rank and file. As the saying goes soft lands create soft men, and the same goes for the templars. they are likely the least experienced military  force in all of thedas. At best i would rank them as a well equiped and trained militia when compared to a proffesional army. In contrast the only ones who can beat the tevinters are likely the soldiers of the anderfelds and the qunuari.

[EmperorSahlertz]

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


Except that archers can actually shoot as long as their LoS is in both games... Otherwise you are spot on.. That is, you missed completely... Again... (nevermind that accuracy with a bow is usually limtied to around 50-100 meters anyway, anything more and the shot becomes unreliable and the bow is etter used in masse formation at this point)

From the comic its clear that the mages not only severely outrange bows but they seem to be extremely accurate. not that mages need to be accurate giving that they use AOE attacks 

Based on a single distorted image from a comic? Yeah, judging from that picture castle walls in Tevitner are apparently also only around 7 meters tall... And judging from that image the mages only cast their spells around 25-50 meters still, unless we assume that the ships are being hit by magic, and not just firing their cannons. That is certainly not longer range than a bow. And especially because of the AoE nature, would mages need to be extremely accurate, otherwise they become useless the second combat is joined.

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
And exactly who here is making stuff up? YOU are the one claiming that Templars are not conditioned for battlefield warfare, and you are basing this off of NOTHING, whereas I actually used established lore and comments from different in-game sources to back up my claim. You are really gonna have to try harder.

Because thats how they are trained. they are trained to hunt down and kill mages in small groups (that does make them suited for guerrilla warfare however). and after that its guard duty. So most of them have never seen any serious man to man combat.  its simple observations. 

And you know exactly how Tempalrs are trained?? How? There is no lore on the subject, and no comments from any character in-game... Could it be that you are making stuff up again? No... That can't be... Surely ahving been called on it once before, you would have learned by now?

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
And this is not about "glorifying Templars" this is about saying taht they serve an important purpose in an eventual fight with Tevinter. You are the pathetic fool, who keeps hating on the Templars no matter what theoretical situation is being discussed. Basically you are contributing NOTHING to the discussion, since you are intend on using your own useless prejudice and headcanon as some sort of indisputable proof of your claims, even though we ahve in-game sources stating the EXACT opposite of what you claim.

Your claims that templars played a vital part in keeping the tevinters in check is laugable. their is not a single scrap of information on how well the templars served during the blights or the exalted marches.
Their is plenty of information that the circle played a vital role in blights and exalted marches. And as somebody already said : mages are a force multiplier. the one that has the most mages win. 

I have NEVER claimed that the Templars played a keyrole in keeping the Tevinters in check. Though judging by their talents, it can't possible be a surprise to anyone, if the Templars were indeed used to great effect against Tevinter during the Exalted Marches on Tevinter..

Nor have I ever said anything about the Templars during the Blights. I honestly don't even know where you are comming from here. It seems you are so pathetically searching for somewhere you can at least be right. So yeah, sure.. Templars probably don't play any important role during a Blight. I mean, sure they are at least another handy fighting force that can be used to fight the Darkspawn, but they aren't specialized to fight this enemy, so they would just be elite-trained soldiers in heavy armor. Almost useless.

And considering how the Qunari beat Tevinter to a bloody pulp without any mages, obviosuly who ever claiemd that mages are a "force multiplier" is wrong.

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
And yes indeed Templars are probably expensive to train. But guess what, most elite fighting forces are extremely expensive to train. That doesn't mean you won't use them, just because you are afraid of losing money. As a matter of fact, NOT using them would be a lost investment. Of course you wouldn't insert them into a straight up slugfest with the enemy, that is not how you use elite forces. They are spearheads, and anti-mage fighters. use them to their and yours advantage. So all of this of course means that you are again wrong.

The templars are not an elite forces. The average tevinter soldier is a veteran because of the constant warfare between the tevinters and the qunuari. so your spearhead will be througly smashed by the tevinters rank and file. As the saying goes soft lands create soft men, and the same goes for the templars. they are likely the least experienced military  force in all of thedas. At best i would rank them as a well equiped and trained militia when compared to a proffesional army. In contrast the only ones who can beat the tevinters are likely the soldiers of the anderfelds and the qunuari.

Templars are trained to exhibit an extreme amount of discipline and mental focus, they very much are an elite force, despite many of them probably not having much military experience beyond their trainning. Also the equipment the Templars brings to bear is second to none. Heavy plate armor, swords and shields, and horses are all the hallmarks of medieval elite forces. Experience is worth a grand total of nothing, if your weapons cannot bite through the enemy's defenses.
I don't know how exactly Tevinter's army functions, but I am fairly certain that they do not have a standing professional army (The Qunari are the only state taht got that as far as I know), so them being at perpetual war with the Qunari doesn't really help them. The conscripted soldiers will eventuall have to return to their farms, and new soldiers are conscripted for the next war. The Templars on the other hand is actually a standing professional army.

[Vulpe]

1) How big do you think castle walls get ?

7 meters are pretty much when it comes to small castles. Of course, there are some have around 40 meters, but there are small ones that have around 7-10. Those are placed in stategic places like hills and mountains and thus they don't make pretty huge walls. Also, that builing seems to be a stronghold that a castle, so their walls tend to be around the 7-10 mark ( at least that's the case with the ones in my country )

The Stronghold of Râșnov has a wall of about 7 meters tall and the one in Brașov has a wall of 12 m . Both were build by teutons. In the end, 7 m walls are not that uncommon (those in the comic looked a little taller ).
Also, the Bran Castle has a wall of  around 14 m (  Dracula Castle as most outsiders know it <_<)



2) It can be seen that the closest ship is on fire and we can also see the places in the water where the firebolts hited.

3) I agree that templars are an elite group. Even if they don't have all that combat experience, they still have the traits you brought up. While I don't see them as a vanguard (that would be stupid), they are excelent for defensive battles, suport and when the hammer and anvil stategy is applied. They seem also efficient in defending keeps.
They are something like the teutonic knights when it comes to combat.

Modifié par JulianWellpit, 10 décembre 2013 - 07:19 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

7 meters are certainly in the low end of any fortress that was expected to actually withstand an enemy assault. Unless of course you are only speaking of the physical structure of the wall, and not the "effective wall" which would for instance include the moat, or any natural and/or constructed elevation. But 7 meters for a stone structure wall as its effective height is low.... Very low.... So low actually that it might aswell have been a wooden structure, if we are saying that 7 meters were the actual effective wall.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 10 décembre 2013 - 07:21 .

[Vulpe]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

7 meters are certainly in the low end of any fortress that was expected to actually withstand an enemy assault. Unless of course you are only speaking of the physical structure of the wall, and not the "effective wall" which would for instance include the moat, or any natural and/or constructed elevation. But 7 meters for a stone structure wall as its effective height is low.... Very low.... So low actually that it might aswell have been a wooden structure, if we are saying that 7 meters were the actual effective wall.

Before anything, I have a question. Sorry if it sounds insulting,it isn't intended, but are you from Europe ?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Yes I am from Europe.

[Vulpe]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Yes I am from Europe.

Then I assume you have been exposed to castles, strongholds and other medieval constructions. You shouldn't underestimate these buildings.

They can be placed in strategic places with slopes that can get higher than 45 degrees.They can also build the so that the defenders would force the attackers to go on the route they want.

For the note : the one from Rasnov, the one with walls of about 7m was conquered only once. 

Brasov was never conquered through direct fight. They had to set the walls in fire to do so.It had a 12m wall.

If you would look at my country's history, you would see that our lands were pretty much attacked by every nation around us. You can say we had our share of war in those times.I advise you to not underestimate those walls.

With skilled defenders even the smales ones can resist.

I know of a case where a polish ruler (I think) that was defeated by the turks ( again.I'm not sure. I'll come with a comment or edit later - what is to note is that an army sieged one fortification - don't know which or even if it's one of the above mentioned) thinked it would be a good ideea to conquer one on his way back home. That fortification had about 2 dozen defenders ( can't remember why ). They defendet it for days, they let the bodies of the soldiers that were killed by the muskets ib their place to trick them they are more and they basically reloade every rifle from every position and shoot from multiple positions.

When they were defeated, the enemy forces were surprised to see a handful of men exiting from it. 

EDIT

It is the the Stonghold of Neamț . The wall had about 12 m and there were only 19 defenders.The ruler was Sobieski (don't know which) , the king of Poland. He attacked it because he believed that some of the thesaurus of Moldavia was located there. The battle lasted for 5 days. 9 of the defenders survided and they surrendered only after they remainded without blackpouder and food.Now the numbers might be a little off, but the ideea is that very few people resisted against a huge force for days. The english wikipedia page is kind of scarce when it comes to the stronghold, so you'll have to belive me.

Modifié par JulianWellpit, 10 décembre 2013 - 07:56 .

[DRTJR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Yes I am from Europe.

And do you want a medal?
I'm from Florida and the Castillo de San Marcos has thirty foot walls (10 meters) and that's flat land. Castles cost money to build dude.

[EmperorSahlertz]

JulianWellpit wrote...
They can be placed in strategic places with slopes that can get higher than 45 degrees.They can also build the so that the defenders would force the attackers to go on the route they want.

Which would increase the wall's "effective height" which is what I have been talking about all along....

JulianWellpit wrote...
For the note : the one from Rasnov, the one with walls of about 7m was conquered only once. 

7 meters tall structure or "effective height" very important to make the distinction..

JulianWellpit wrote...
Brasov was never conquered through direct fight. They had to set the walls in fire to do so.It had a 12m wall.

Which is almost double 7m....

JulianWellpit wrote...
If you would look at my country's history, you would see that our lands were pretty much attacked by every nation around us. You can say we had our share of war in those times.I advise you to not underestimate those walls.

I am not underestimating walls. I am saying that 7 meters total height of walls, is LOW.

JulianWellpit wrote...
I know of a case where a polish ruler (I think) that was defeated by the turks ( again.I'm not sure. I'll come with a comment or edit later - what is to note is that an army sieged one fortification - don't know which or even if it's one of the above mentioned. That fortification had about 2 dozen defenders ( don't remember why ). They defendet it for days, they let the bodies of the soldiers that were killed by the muskets on their place to trick them they are more and they would basically reload every rifle from every position and shoot from multiple positions.

When they were defeated, the enemy forces were surprised to see a handful of men exiting from it. 

How is this relevant? This is obviously an account of a siege from after the invention of reliable gunpowder weapons, which pretty much meant the end of conventional medieval siege warfare, and thus the height of the walls became less relevant, compared to other defensive qualities of the fortifications.

[EmperorSahlertz]

DRTJR wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Yes I am from Europe.

And do you want a medal?
I'm from Florida and the Castillo de San Marcos has thirty foot walls (10 meters) and that's flat land. Castles cost money to build dude.

He asked me a question, and I answered **********.

[Vulpe]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

JulianWellpit wrote...
They can be placed in strategic places with slopes that can get higher than 45 degrees.They can also build the so that the defenders would force the attackers to go on the route they want.

Which would increase the wall's "effective height" which is what I have been talking about all along....

Understood.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

JulianWellpit wrote...
For the note : the one from Rasnov, the one with walls of about 7m was conquered only once. 

7 meters tall structure or "effective height" very important to make the distinction..

7 m walls. The actual stronghold is placed at about 150m over the city on it's northern part is accesible by walking that distance on the other side. The road has an angle that varies from 20 to 30 degrees.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Which is almost double 7m....

But pretty small when you compare them with the 40m ones. The Tevinter one looker like it had multiple rings and the walls were build in such a way that they couldn't use ladders. I might add that there were no trees to make ladders or siege towers from them.Also, I think you are a little tight by only giving them 7m. 

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I am not underestimating walls. I am saying that 7 meters total height of walls, is LOW.

And still it they were useful. As in the comic, the builders took advantage of the terrain.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
How is this relevant? This is obviously an account of a siege from after the invention of reliable gunpowder weapons, which pretty much meant the end of conventional medieval siege warfare, and thus the height of the walls became less relevant, compared to other defensive qualities of the fortifications.

Sieges were still present on those times. The sole reason why they didn't sieged it in a medieval fashion way is because they believed that it was packed with defenders.

Modifié par JulianWellpit, 10 décembre 2013 - 08:50 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

JulianWellpit wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Which is almost double 7m....

But pretty small when you compare them with the 40m ones. The Tevinter one looker like it had multiple rings and the walls were build in such a way that they couldn't use ladders. I might add that there were no trees to make them or siege towers.Also, I think you are a little tight by only giving the 7m. 

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I am not underestimating walls. I am saying that 7 meters total height of walls, is LOW.

And still it they were useful. As in the comic, the builders took advantage from the terrain.

I was more talking about those easily scalable rocky protrusions infront of the main fortress.
7m is low for a wall compared to a grown man, hell 7m is almost scalable for a man, even if he is in full equipment.... 15m is adequate in its height, it offers better protection, and the enemy are less like to be able to throw projectiles at you. The 40m walls were only used for major fortifications usually of cities.

JulianWellpit wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
How is this relevant? This is obviously an account of a siege from after the invention of reliable gunpowder weapons, which pretty much meant the end of conventional medieval siege warfare, and thus the height of the walls became less relevant, compared to other defensive qualities of the fortifications.

Sieges were still present on those times. The sole reason why they didn't sieged it in a medieval fashion way is because they believed that it was packed with defenders.

Sieges still occur TODAY, but obviously the nature of siege warfare has changed drastically since its conception. The addition of gunpowder was one of the major shakers of siege warfare.

[Vulpe]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Sieges still occur TODAY, but obviously the nature of siege warfare has changed drastically since its conception. The addition of gunpowder was one of the major shakers of siege warfare.

When I said sieges I was referring to the classical ladders, siege towers, bathering rams. Even after blackpouder was invented, they still existed.

[EmperorSahlertz]

I can assure you, that siege towers and battering rams were certainly on the decline at the time of muskets. Generally at the time of muskets siege warfare was at a decline, since it was easier for the enemy to simply ignore the fortification and force the defender out on the field, than to actually lay siege.
And I can also tell you that we still use battering rams and siege towers today.. However with the accesibility of guns and explosives, they are certainly only a circumstancial use nowadays.

[Vulpe]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I can assure you, that siege towers and battering rams were certainly on the decline at the time of muskets. Generally at the time of muskets siege warfare was at a decline, since it was easier for the enemy to simply ignore the fortification and force the defender out on the field, than to actually lay siege.
And I can also tell you that we still use battering rams and siege towers today.. However with the accesibility of guns and explosives, they are certainly only a circumstancial use nowadays.

I can tell you that in this parts they were't. We started to get in trend with the rest of the world barely in the 19 century, during the Independence War.

The battle I'm talking about took place in the 17 century.

[DKJaigen]

[quote]


And you know exactly how Tempalrs are trained?? How? There is no lore on the subject, and no comments from any character in-game... Could it be that you are making stuff up again? No... That can't be... Surely ahving been called on it once before, you would have learned by now?

[/quote]

Because the templars are specialized in hunting mages. their tactics reflect this during DAO and DA2. they move in wolfpacks designed for hunting targets. . you never see templars moving in formation because they are not trained to do so. in fact conventional formations would be suicidal .

[quote]
Templars are trained to exhibit an extreme amount of discipline and mental focus, they very much are an elite force,

[/quote]

Very useful when a single tevinter knight can easily kill 5 templars because they lack the knowledge of swordplay

[quote]
despite many of them probably not having much military experience beyond their trainning.
[quote]

Then they are not an elite force
[quote]
Also the equipment the Templars brings to bear is second to none. Heavy plate armor, swords and shields, and horses are all the hallmarks of medieval elite forces. Experience is worth a grand total of nothing, if your weapons cannot bite through the enemy's defenses.
[/quote]

But they do. The tevinter knights all have training and weapons to overcome heavy armor.

[quote]
I don't know how exactly Tevinter's army functions, but I am fairly certain that they do not have a standing professional army (The Qunari are the only state taht got that as far as I know), so them being at perpetual war with the Qunari doesn't really help them. The conscripted soldiers will eventuall have to return to their farms, and new soldiers are conscripted for the next war. The Templars on the other hand is actually a standing professional army.[/quote]

They are modeled after the byzantine empire . And if they are they likely have the largest professional army in thedas . really you knowledge of medieval history despite that you come from europe is sadly lacking.

[EmperorSahlertz]

JulianWellpit wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I can assure you, that siege towers and battering rams were certainly on the decline at the time of muskets. Generally at the time of muskets siege warfare was at a decline, since it was easier for the enemy to simply ignore the fortification and force the defender out on the field, than to actually lay siege.
And I can also tell you that we still use battering rams and siege towers today.. However with the accesibility of guns and explosives, they are certainly only a circumstancial use nowadays.

I can tell you that in this parts they were't. We started to get in trend with the rest of the world barely in the 19 century, during the Independence War.

The battle I'm talking about took place in the 17 century.

17th century was still reasonably early in the development of gunpowder as to still allow for mass formation combat with infantry still mainly composed of melee soldiers, usually armed with pikes.
And honestly... Just from a quick google search of that citadel... Obivously the EFFECTIVE height of the walls are several hundred meters. Normal siege equipment would be useless in a siege of that fortress.....

That also explains why, even thought he story is obivously embelished and romantized beyond credibility, why a "less than 25" strong force can defend it against a 25.000 strong attacking force..

[Vulpe]

@DKJaigen 
I have to dissagre on the templars are not good in wars part. They regulary train their swordsmanship between themselves and are better equiped than most soldiers.

Remember that most of the armies in medieval times were made from peasants, so militia. That would make templar more useful than the usual  peasant turned soldier for the war.

Also, they resemble the templar knights when it comes to their way of being. Templars were monks, pelering guards and bankers, but they were still fighters and they trained in swordplay.

The DA templars would be really defensive in their combat. They would be the anvil, holding the line and keeping the enemy force concentrated on them while another force would play the role of the hammer.

Even if they specialize in hunting mages, they are first an order of holy knights. Even if some of them wouldn't be so experienced in the art of warfare, they would get better, as any other soldier.

Modifié par JulianWellpit, 10 décembre 2013 - 09:54 .

[Vulpe]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

JulianWellpit wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I can assure you, that siege towers and battering rams were certainly on the decline at the time of muskets. Generally at the time of muskets siege warfare was at a decline, since it was easier for the enemy to simply ignore the fortification and force the defender out on the field, than to actually lay siege.
And I can also tell you that we still use battering rams and siege towers today.. However with the accesibility of guns and explosives, they are certainly only a circumstancial use nowadays.

I can tell you that in this parts they were't. We started to get in trend with the rest of the world barely in the 19 century, during the Independence War.

The battle I'm talking about took place in the 17 century.

17th century was still reasonably early in the development of gunpowder as to still allow for mass formation combat with infantry still mainly composed of melee soldiers, usually armed with pikes.
And honestly... Just from a quick google search of that citadel... Obivously the EFFECTIVE height of the walls are several hundred meters. Normal siege equipment would be useless in a siege of that fortress.....

That also explains why, even thought he story is obivously embelished and romantized beyond credibility, why a "less than 25" strong force can defend it against a 25.000 strong attacking force..

The story fits the ottoman chronicles. While I doubt that those are the actual numbers, I'm sure that the forces difference was huge.

As for the fortress positioning - that's how we roll . Burn the crops, poison the wells and move the population in the mountains.We always used the mountains and high ground in our fights.We were almost every time at a technological and numerical disadvantage.  

[EmperorSahlertz]

DKJaigen wrote...

And you know exactly how Tempalrs are trained?? How? There is no lore on the subject, and no comments from any character in-game... Could it be that you are making stuff up again? No... That can't be... Surely ahving been called on it once before, you would have learned by now?

Because the templars are specialized in hunting mages. their tactics reflect this during DAO and DA2. they move in wolfpacks designed for hunting targets. . you never see templars moving in formation because they are not trained to do so. in fact conventional formations would be suicidal

 .
Wow... Really? I mean, you usually sink low, but this... This is something else.... 

We don't see Templars moving in formation BECAUSE WE DON'T SEE THEM ON A BATTLEFIELD...  Why the **** would the Templars waste time moving in formation when tehy are fighting only 1-4 at a time?? That would be extremely inefficient.. And even on a battlefield, in medieval warfare the "formation" usually jsut meant, hold the line, so that you would have at least an inkling towards which of the dudes you were supposed to hack at. Medieval warfare did not have the formations of the ancient greeks or the romans.

DKJaigen wrote...

Templars are trained to exhibit an extreme amount of discipline and mental focus, they very much are an elite force,

Very useful when a single tevinter knight can easily kill 5 templars because they lack the knowledge of swordplay

Disregarding the fact that there is no such thing as a "Tevinter Knight", you are basing your asinine statement on what exactly? Because right now, you are saying taht Templars aren't trained swordsmen, even when we KNOW for a fact that they are.

DKJaigen wrote...

despite many of them probably not having much military experience beyond their trainning.

Then they are not an elite force

Obviously you have no idea of what constitutes an elite force. I shouldn't be surprised..

An elite force is MORE than just experience. As a matter of fact, experience means very little when it comes to elite. Elite is a matter of equipment and trainning. Usually yes, you would only recruit experienced people into an elite force, but that is applying modern standards to the concept. The matter of fact is, that the Templars are better trained and equiped than 90% of all the other troops on the battlefield. They ARE an elite force.

DKJaigen wrote...

Also the equipment the Templars brings to bear is second to none. Heavy plate armor, swords and shields, and horses are all the hallmarks of medieval elite forces. Experience is worth a grand total of nothing, if your weapons cannot bite through the enemy's defenses.

But they do. The tevinter knights all have training and weapons to overcome heavy armor. 

Another asinine statemnt. What are you basing this off of? I want sources. So far, we know nothing of how the Tevinter Military functions (other than the fact that we KNOW that they do not have a social class equivalent of Knight....).

DKJaigen wrote...

I don't know how exactly Tevinter's army functions, but I am fairly certain that they do not have a standing professional army (The Qunari are the only state taht got that as far as I know), so them being at perpetual war with the Qunari doesn't really help them. The conscripted soldiers will eventuall have to return to their farms, and new soldiers are conscripted for the next war. The Templars on the other hand is actually a standing professional army.

They are modeled after the byzantine empire . And if they are they likely have the largest professional army in thedas . really you knowledge of medieval history despite that you come from europe is sadly lacking.

They are INSPIRED by, they are not supposed to be a perfect image of the Eastern Roman Empire, obviously... Last I checked the Byzantine weren't ruled by mages who enforced their will through a macabre magic, which fed them power through violence and death.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 10 décembre 2013 - 09:55 .