310 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

No not at all

 

1.)Martial arts are meant to be used in different ways depending on the one in question. 

 

2.)As ive said before, judging a group based on their strategic ability carries way too many variable (landscape,weather,leaders involved, etc) its much simpler to go by warrior vs warrior because you're taking what we know of their training/weaponry and pitting them against each other. This takes much less into account and usually gets the idea across.

 

Saying Chevaliers arent at the top because Orlais lost as a whole isnt a legitimate statement. Chevaliers cant win a war on their own. Thats like saying the spartans were the highest quality warriors at Thermopylae only because they lost the battle in the end. 

Martial arts is meant to attack or defense on self in combat. The difference with attacks is when and how it's use in combat. Each attack has it own category from counter, attack, or misdirection. That being said they have the same concept with their attacks with timing, speed, and damage. Arts for attacking are about hitting as fast as possible and getting away as fast as possible. Defensive art always about reflecting the attack to attack the target off guard. And faints are about misdirecting the target to opening them up to be attack.

Look ,every martial art has the guy that can take on 50 guys. So saying this is great because this one guy can take 50 at once is pointless because all styles have that. Put a guy like that to face each other also has those variables that can turn the fight as well. 

To see which Martial art is best it has to be seen facing all these variables that can happen in conflict, any conflict including wars.

 

Also, Spartians were the highest  quality warriors in Thermopylae.

[leaguer of one]

Yes, but I still trust a chevaliers to have my back and protect me in a fight much more than just some average guard or soldier.

 

Chevaliers know how to fight mages, they know how to fight darkspawn and they know how fight armies too.  Anyone can join the Legion of the dead or the Ash warriors but only the best (human) fighters can join the Chevaliars.

 

 

Masked Empire spoilers:

Spoiler

Also, despite being beaten and tortured by the dalish, Michel took them all on after escaping and still won fairly easily so I think the Chevaliers must be doing something right if they can handle a whole clan of the best archers in the world on their own.

So do the qunari. So do teventor soldiers. So do others from different places in thedus.

[Mabari-Master]

Not to mention the boatloads of Chevalier who were killed in Ferelden. In fact the Orlesian Emperor sent several legions, entire legions, of Chevalier into Ferelden to put down the rebellion but they all kept dying. The final remnants of the Order were forced to flee along with all the Orlesian citizens back to Orlais.

 

And just so you know, a legion is made up of over six thousand men, not including support. 

[Master Warder Z_]

Probably the Seekers.

[TheJediSaint]

Yes, but I still trust a chevaliers to have my back and protect me in a fight much more than just some average guard or soldier.

 

Chevaliers know how to fight mages, they know how to fight darkspawn and they know how fight armies too.  Anyone can join the Legion of the dead or the Ash warriors but only the best (human) fighters can join the Chevaliars.

 

 

Masked Empire spoilers:

Spoiler

Also, despite being beaten and tortured by the dalish, Michel took them all on after escaping and still won fairly easily so I think the Chevaliers must be doing something right if they can handle a whole clan of the best archers in the world on their own.

Ser Michel is not typical a Chevalier, he's the personal Champion of the Empress of Orlais .  Of course he's going to be very capable of kicking ass.  

[leaguer of one]

Probably the Seekers.

Nope.

[SerCambria358]

Martial arts is meant to attack or defense on self in combat. The difference with attacks is when and how it's use in combat. Each attack has it own category from counter, attack, or misdirection. That being said they have the same concept with their attacks with timing, speed, and damage. Arts for attacking are about hitting as fast as possible and getting away as fast as possible. Defensive art always about reflecting the attack to attack the target off guard. And faints are about misdirecting the target to opening them up to be attack.

Look ,every martial art has the guy that can take on 50 guys. So saying this is great because this one guy can take 50 at once is pointless because all style have that. Put guy like that to face each other also has those variables that can turn the fight as well. 

To see which Martial art is best it has to be seen facing all these variables that can happen in conflict, any conflict including wars.

 

Also, Spartian were the highest warriors in Thermopylae.

None of that supported your point nor discredited mine. You tried to say that martial arts is about group fighting, i said that wasnt true because it isnt. I pointed to any one guy that can take on 50 people, im speaking about the average warrior from both organizations in question. Im not speaking about the exceptional person with a gift for killing. 

 

Plus none of this has anything to do with the original point i made against what you said. You tried to say that because Orlais has lost wars, that this somehow means the Chevaliers arent at the top of the list which is why i mentioned the Thermopylae example. I never said they werent the best in Greece, im saying the opposite, according to your logic, just because the Spartans lost at Thermopylae that means they werent the best, which isnt the truth.

 

Bottom line, just because the Chevaliers couldnt carry on winning a war on their own doesnt mean they arent exceptionally skilled

[TheJediSaint]

Probably the Seekers.

I doubt most Seekers are on the same level as Lambert and Cassandra.

[SerCambria358]

Not to mention the boatloads of Chevalier who were killed in Ferelden. In fact the Orlesian Emperor sent several legions, entire legions, of Chevalier into Ferelden to put down the rebellion but they all kept dying. The final remnants of the Order were forced to flee along with all the Orlesian citizens back to Orlais.

 

And just so you know, a legion is made up of over six thousand men, not including support. 

Again thats a product of inferior strategy not because Fereldan troops are better skilled than Chevaliers 

[leaguer of one]

None of that supported your point nor discredited mine. You tried to say that martial arts is about group fighting, i said that wasnt true because it isnt. I pointed to any one guy that can take on 50 people, im speaking about the average warrior from both organizations in question. Im not speaking about the exceptional person with a gift for killing. 

 

Plus none of this has anything to do with the original point i made against what you said. You tried to say that because Orlais has lost wars, that this somehow means the Chevaliers arent at the top of the list which is why i mentioned the Thermopylae example. I never said they werent the best in Greece, im saying the opposite, according to your logic, just because the Spartans lost at Thermopylae that means they werent the best, which isnt the truth.

 

Bottom line, just because the Chevaliers couldnt carry on winning a war on their own doesnt mean they arent exceptionally skilled

No, I'm not says martial arts is about group fights alone. I'm saying group fights are necessary to be included in estimation their quality. And to see how the average warrior one martial art compared to another you need group conflicts. Why, because it has the fights face a the variables that happen in combat. To see what is the best art that art must fact all the variable of conflict.

 

If orlais lost wars then the issue is with the quality of the fighters form the front men to the leaders in the back. It's not just about skill, it about effectiveness. If they don't win, how can they bee seen as effective?

[Master Warder Z_]

I doubt most Seekers are on the same level as Lambert and Cassandra.

They are like the grey wardens in that they usually only take veterans or extremely skilled exceptions.

They are outfitted with presumably the best kit Chantry gold can buy and their willpower and discipline is likely immense.

Combine that with anti magic abilities, experience and even further training and you get a package I'm guessing even rivals the chevaliers.

They also have matte black armor.

[Mabari-Master]

SerCambria358: Again that's a product of inferior strategy not because Fereldan troops are better skilled than Chevaliers.

 

Strategy is the most defining and integral skill for any warrior to possess. And seeing as the Chevaliers are supposed to be the most elite of warriors, this lack strategic planning and respect for the capabilities of their opponents speaks poorly of them.

 

I have no doubt they are highly skilled in combat, but thus far it seems they only have success when they battle suits their style of combat i.e. open field warfare, where they can ride down their enemies on horseback.

[leaguer of one]

Again thats a product of inferior strategy not because Fereldan troops are better skilled than Chevaliers 

Strategy is part of martial arts from one on one fight to full on wars. If they lost because of strategy that still means they have a flaw in there martial arts.

[Muspade]

Hawke, The Warden and The Inquisitor.

They are Mary/Gary Sues/Stues by their very nature.

/Thread

[leaguer of one]

Hawke, The Warden and The Inquisitor.

/Thread

Commander Shepard.

/Forum

[The Baconer]

Chevaliers might have some of the best training in Thedas but I doubt many are as skilled as Michel. He's the player character of Chevaliers, almost. Not only does he say he's never encountered another Chevalier as well trained as him (including Gaspard), but there's actually a lot of nameless Chevaliers that die by the boatload in the book.

 

Michel has learned the most advanced and powerful technique known to DA: the Jobber Aura.

 

So powerful, it can make Revenants forget how to cast their own spells.

[SerCambria358]

No, I'm not says martial arts is about group fights alone. I'm saying group fights are necessary to be included in estimation their quality. And to see how the average warrior one martial art compared to another you need group conflicts. Why, because it has the fights face a the variables that happen in combat. To see what is the best art that art must fact all the variable of conflict.

 

If orlais lost wars then the issue is with the quality of the fighters form the front men to the leaders in the back. It's not just about skill, it about effectiveness. If they don't win, how can they bee seen as effective?

Strategy is part of martial arts from one on one fight to full on wars. If they lost because of strategy that still means they have a flaw in there martial arts.

I dont believe that at all, if we're going to determine the quality of say modern special forces, we're going to look at their training and equipment, not how well the country as a whole fought. Again one special forces unit cannot always carry an entire nation. Losing a battle in no way determines the quality of the soldiers, in the revolutionary war Red Coats were by far better fed/equipped/trained but they lost due to inferior tactics, this loss in no way means that the best England had to offer in terms of soldier quality was inferior to what the 13 Colonies had to offer.

 

I just gave you an example (the 300 spartans) in why lossing a battle doesnt mean their martial practices are flawed. That argument is flawed

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

Hawke, The Warden and The Inquisitor.

They are Mary/Gary Sues/Stues by their very nature.

/Thread

 

I'd actually put Cassandra up there with them too, if Dawn of the Seeker is to be believed. :s

 

(which it probably isn't, but...)

[leaguer of one]

I dont believe that at all, if we're going to determine the quality of say modern special forces, we're going to look at their training and equipment, not how well the country as a whole fought. Again one special forces unit cannot always carry an entire nation. Losing a battle in no way determines the quality of the soldiers, in the revolutionary war Red Coats were by far better fed/equipped/trained but they lost due to inferior tactics, this loss in no way means that the best England had to offer in terms of soldier quality was inferior to what the 13 Colonies had to offer.

 

I just gave you an example (the 300 spartans) in why lossing a battle doesnt mean their martial practices are flawed. That argument is flawed

Wrong. Your arguing to see what the best art by putting it in a vacuum and having them face off. That incorrect, life is not a vacuum. To see what them best you need to see it in different states variable are need for that.

You can't a specific car is the best because how effective it can run on straight dry road, why  evaluate combat by trying to put them in perfect states?

[Mabari-Master]

You're forgetting that a great deal of the Continental Army were former Red Coats and had the same training. Like the Chevaliers the Red Coats were trained for open field warfare, take away the open field they lose their advantage.

[Br3admax]

I'd actually put Cassandra up there with them too, if Dawn of the Seeker is to be believed. :s

 

(which it probably isn't, but...)

Cassandra is a bamf. Really no questioning. 

[leaguer of one]

Cassandra is a bamf. Really no questioning. 

She's a hero class who can kill dragons.

 

But that's a point to the dragon slayer of navarra not the Seekers.

[leaguer of one]

x

[myahele]

Friends of Red Jenny

The Crows - despite not having much of an army, once occupied the crows will take care of the leaders.

[SerCambria358]

Wrong. Your arguing to see what the best art by putting it in a vacuum and having them face off. That incorrect, life is not a vacuum. To see what them best you need to see it in different states variable are need for that.

You can't a specific car is the best because how effective it can run on straight dry road, why  evaluate combat by trying to put them in perfect states?

Because the variables in fighting a battle dont dictate the better warriors! If you have an army of elites vs a regular army, and the elites win but in the next battle, the regular army has an amazing general and wins the battle against the elites, that means it was the general that won the day and had nothing to do with the warriors combat skill but the tactical genius of the general.

 

Thats why winning and lossing battles in the sense that you're thinking, isnt a legitimate basis to judge who the best is. Again for the third time if this was the case, then the spartans werent superior to anyone because they lost battles