Well I was disappointed with Game of Thrones. There, I've said it.

[Sir C]

I shan't tell you why for fear of abuse from those who haven't seen it yet but are incapable of opening a thread which is likely to contains spoilers.

[Burney]

I shan't tell you why for fear of abuse from those who haven't seen it yet but are incapable of opening a thread which is likely to contains spoilers.

Oh, no. Once you open what is obviously a spoiler-filled thread, you've no-one to blame but yourself.

Go on, tell us why you are disappoint. Was it the lack of boobs and that?

[The Jorge]

I shan't tell you why for fear of abuse from those who haven't seen it yet but are incapable of opening a thread which is likely to contains spoilers.

I did think it was a little light on dialogue, but I suppose that's battle scenes for you.

It does seem to have stepped down a couple of levels since they deviated from the book.

[Burney]

I did think it was a little light on dialogue, but I suppose that's battle scenes for you.

It does seem to have stepped down a couple of levels since they deviated from the book.

Battle scenes are ace. Talking's for pooves.

I don't buy this 'it was better when it was based on the book' line at all. I think its plotting has been greatly improved by moving away from the rambling old ****'s nonsense. Thank **** they killed off the Dorne plot line, for instance. That was ****ing **** in the books.

Thing is, it's not as though GRRM is ****ing Tolstoy or anything. He's actually rather a poor writer

[The Jorge]

Battle scenes are ace. Talking's for pooves.

I don't buy this 'it was better when it was based on the book' line at all. I think its plotting has been greatly improved by moving away from the rambling old ****'s nonsense. Thank **** they killed off the Dorne plot line, for instance. That was ****ing **** in the books.

Thing is, it's not as though GRRM is ****ing Tolstoy or anything. He's actually rather a poor writer

He's not the world's greatest writer but he does have an undeniable knack for plotting and character development. It just feels a little bit more like an ordinary TV show now, especially with things like Arya's Terminator-esque battle the day after being stabbed in the gut three times.

[Sir C]

Oh, no. Once you open what is obviously a spoiler-filled thread, you've no-one to blame but yourself.

Go on, tell us why you are disappoint. Was it the lack of boobs and that?

The battle was positively unbelievable.

1. Cavalry charges happen over a very short distance - the two armies started half a mile from each other. The initial cavalry charge would have resulted in nothing more than blown horses.

2. Heavy swords do not have some sort of razor sharp edge, a touch from which instantly rips through armour or leather clothing and tears flesh from bones. You'd need some sort of laser for that.

3. Such swords cannot be swung around for 20 minutes at a time non-stop. You'd be physically exhausted.

4. Horses will not gallop into ranks of men. Littlefinger's cavalry mowing Bolton's men down like lawnmowers was ridiculous.

5. Earlier, that bird rode her dragon into action, but you have to ask yourself whether the invading army would really have launched a seaborne assault without ensuring they had aerial superiority. I mean, it just wouldn't happen, would it?

[Luis Anaconda]

The battle was positively unbelievable.

1. Cavalry charges happen over a very short distance - the two armies started half a mile from each other. The initial cavalry charge would have resulted in nothing more than blown horses.

2. Heavy swords do not have some sort of razor sharp edge, a touch from which instantly rips through armour or leather clothing and tears flesh from bones. You'd need some sort of laser for that.

3. Such swords cannot be swung around for 20 minutes at a time non-stop. You'd be physically exhausted.

4. Horses will not gallop into ranks of men. Littlefinger's cavalry mowing Bolton's men down like lawnmowers was ridiculous.

5. Earlier, that bird rode her dragon into action, but you have to ask yourself whether the invading army would really have launched a seaborne assault without ensuring they had aerial superiority. I mean, it just wouldn't happen, would it?

Has one commanded a battle at a certain level?

[Sir C]

Has one commanded a battle at a certain level?

I am English, la. We are naturally a warrior people. We get this ****.

[Burney]

He's not the world's greatest writer but he does have an undeniable knack for plotting and character development. It just feels a little bit more like an ordinary TV show now, especially with things like Arya's Terminator-esque battle the day after being stabbed in the gut three times.

Yeah, that was a bit ****, I'll admit. The weird thing was that it was totally self-inflicted. They didn't have to have her being apparently mortally injured. Neither did they have to have her prancing around Bravos splashing the cash as though she didn't have a care in the world. There were hundreds of ways of achieving the narrative arc they needed without stretching credulity. That did just come across as a blatant attempt to inject apparent jeopardy to a main character at the end of an episode.
assertion that that the books aren't well plotted either. The last two he just started introducing characters from nowhere who didn't go anywhere, while Daenarys's storyline in the books made her even more of a tedious **** than in the TV programmes (not easily achieved imo). At least the TV shows seem to be pushing the story forward, whereas the books were just meandering if not going around in circles and disappearing up their own arses.

[The Jorge]

Yeah, that was a bit ****, I'll admit. The weird thing was that it was totally self-inflicted. They didn't have to have her being apparently mortally injured. Neither did they have to have her prancing around Bravos splashing the cash as though she didn't have a care in the world. There were hundreds of ways of achieving the narrative arc they needed without stretching credulity. That did just come across as a blatant attempt to inject apparent jeopardy to a main character at the end of an episode.
assertion that that the books aren't well plotted either. The last two he just started introducing characters from nowhere who didn't go anywhere, while Daenarys's storyline in the books made her even more of a tedious **** than in the TV programmes (not easily achieved imo). At least the TV shows seem to be pushing the story forward, whereas the books were just meandering if not going around in circles and disappearing up their own arses.

True, the last couple did go all over the place but I still hope some of them have a point.

[Burney]

The battle was positively unbelievable.

1. Cavalry charges happen over a very short distance - the two armies started half a mile from each other. The initial cavalry charge would have resulted in nothing more than blown horses.

2. Heavy swords do not have some sort of razor sharp edge, a touch from which instantly rips through armour or leather clothing and tears flesh from bones. You'd need some sort of laser for that.

3. Such swords cannot be swung around for 20 minutes at a time non-stop. You'd be physically exhausted.

4. Horses will not gallop into ranks of men. Littlefinger's cavalry mowing Bolton's men down like lawnmowers was ridiculous.

5. Earlier, that bird rode her dragon into action, but you have to ask yourself whether the invading army would really have launched a seaborne assault without ensuring they had aerial superiority. I mean, it just wouldn't happen, would it?


1. True, but artistic licence required distance for the whole Rickon business.
2. True, but they did cause fairly horrendous injuries and could certainly lop off an unarmored limb or a head if wielded with sufficient force.
3. I don't think anyone was swinging a sword for 20 minutes. Mind you, there were no end of medieval battles where people did keep fighting for ages - something like Towton would be a good example. Also, you have to bear in mind that men brought up to that sort of combat were immensely stronger than us modern day weaklings.
4. John Keegan was interesting on this one. He concluded that generally history showed that they wouldn't, but were instead most effective against enemies who broke at the sight of the charge. That said, there are examples where highly-trained heavy cavalry in close formation would smash into and through ranks of men - he gave the example of Frankish knights and (I think) Parthian cavalry against Roman formations.
5. I think the Masters thought the dragons were either safely locked away and/or that dragon bird wasn't at home. This was clearly a miscalculation.

[The Jorge]

1. True, but artistic licence required distance for the whole Rickon business.
2. True, but they did cause fairly horrendous injuries and could certainly lop off an unarmored limb or a head if wielded with sufficient force.
3. I don't think anyone was swinging a sword for 20 minutes. Mind you, there were no end of medieval battles where people did keep fighting for ages - something like Towton would be a good example. Also, you have to bear in mind that men brought up to that sort of combat were immensely stronger than us modern day weaklings.
4. John Keegan was interesting on this one. He concluded that generally history showed that they wouldn't, but were instead most effective against enemies who broke at the sight of the charge. That said, there are examples where highly-trained heavy cavalry in close formation would smash into and through ranks of men - he gave the example of Frankish knights and (I think) Parthian cavalry against Roman formations.
5. I think the Masters thought the dragons were either safely locked away and/or that dragon bird wasn't at home. This was clearly a miscalculation.

Oh dear, it sounds like you guys are about to pull on your bloussons, breeches and codpieces. Dont get pissed on a roundabout again.

[Burney]

True, the last couple did go all over the place but I still hope some of them have a point.

They did more than go all over the place. They totally ****ed up the narrative. He introduced a long-lost Targaeryan who would basically make Danaerys completely pointless, ffs!

[Sir C]

Oh dear, it sounds like you guys are about to pull on your bloussons, breeches and codpieces. Dont get pissed on a roundabout again.

Denigrating knowledge, j? Revelling in ignorance?

Are you Irish?

[The Jorge]

Denigrating knowledge, j? Revelling in ignorance?

Are you Irish?

Yes, yes I am.

I'm not being an anti-intellectual snob though, I'm just amused by your spoddishness. The pair of you really have a hard on for war.

[Sir C]

Yes, yes I am.

I'm not being an anti-intellectual snob though, I'm just amused by your spoddishness. The pair of you really have a hard on for war.

So in your head, one can only have knowledge of subjects about which one has a hard on?

If that's not anti-intellectual, Christ knows what is.

[Burney]

Yes, yes I am.

I'm not being an anti-intellectual snob though, I'm just amused by your spoddishness. The pair of you really have a hard on for war.

Whether you like it or not, j, war has been the engineroom of human technological and societal progress. No advance that has been achieved by any society would have been possible without the security and prosperity afforded by an ability to make war successfully. Athens brought forth democracy and philosophy because the heavily armoured citizen soldier in phalanx could defeat any opposition the ancient world had to offer. Rome brought civil engineering and civil society to much of the world because its legions could batter all-comers.
War must be at the heart of any serious study of human history. If you aren't interested in it, you can't understand anything about mankind.

[The Jorge]

Whether you like it or not, j, war has been the engineroom of human technological and societal progress. No advance that has been achieved by any society would have been possible without the security and prosperity afforded by an ability to make war successfully. Athens brought forth democracy and philosophy because the heavily armoured citizen soldier in phalanx could defeat any opposition the ancient world had to offer. Rome brought civil engineering and civil society to much of the world because its legions could batter all-comers.
War must be at the heart of any serious study of human history. If you aren't interested in it, you can't understand anything about mankind.

You'e right of course, the british empire would be nothing without seafaring advances like the ship of the line, Smith and Wesson's firearms won america it's war against the people competing for their land. I do know this stuff, I just dont get so weirdly animated about it.

[The Jorge]

So in your head, one can only have knowledge of subjects about which one has a hard on?

If that's not anti-intellectual, Christ knows what is.

Not at all, but you do also love to glory in a bit of anti-intellectualism. Surely you recognise this.

[Burney]

You'e right of course, the british empire would be nothing without seafaring advances like the ship of the line, Smith and Wesson's firearms won america it's war against the people competing for their land. I do know this stuff, I just dont get so weirdly animated about it.

What you describe as 'weirdly animated' is simply a way for your prejudice to describe someone else's interest in something. Being interested in war, its technology, its mechanics and its intricacies is no 'weirder' than being interested in any other human activity that shapes history and societies.

[The Jorge]

What you describe as 'weirdly animated' is simply a way for your prejudice to describe someone else's interest in something. Being interested in war, its technology, its mechanics and its intricacies is no 'weirder' than being interested in any other human activity that shapes history and societies.

I dont see either of you getting too het up about aqueducts, archimedes screws or irrigation though.

[Luis Anaconda]

What you describe as 'weirdly animated' is simply a way for your prejudice to describe someone else's interest in something. Being interested in war, its technology, its mechanics and its intricacies is no 'weirder' than being interested in any other human activity that shapes history and societies.
there are those who take it too far though

207

[Burney]

I dont see either of you getting too het up about aqueducts, archimedes screws or irrigation though.

I'm very interested in politics, architecture, literature, music, food and all manner of other cultural matters. Sir C also delights in these things while also having an impressive grasp of matters technological that I don't understand. What of it? Is there some mutual exclusivity between these things and being interested in the history of warfare? Are you saying that an interest in warfare axiomatically makes you a cultural philistine?

[Burney]

there are those who take it too far though

207


A fine bunch of lads, the Soiled Nut, la.

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

I'm astonished you haven't noted that the dragons would have no aerodynamic integrity. Those wingspans couldn't possibly supply the requisite lift for their body mass (you were actually a pilot C, not some kind of shabby fantasist?).

[Sir C]

I'm astonished you haven't noted that the dragons would have no aerodynamic integrity. Those wingspans couldn't possibly supply the requisite lift for their body mass (you were actually a pilot C, not some kind of shabby fantasist?).

It is well known that dragons create hydrogen from water and use this i) to breathe fire, and ii) to inflate their lungs and blood vessels with this lighter-than-air gas, giving them lift.

If we take the equation for Total lift, 1/2rho x V2 x SCl, we can easily see that an increased Cl can result from the internal creation of hydrogen.

Anything else?

[The Jorge]

I'm very interested in politics, architecture, literature, music, food and all manner of other cultural matters. Sir C also delights in these things while also having an impressive grasp of matters technological that I don't understand. What of it? Is there some mutual exclusivity between these things and being interested in the history of warfare? Are you saying that an interest in warfare axiomatically makes you a cultural philistine?

No, you just seem *more* interested in warfare than other stuff. Bloussons notwithstanding

[Burney]

No, you just seem *more* interested in warfare than other stuff. Bloussons notwithstanding

Really? I debate politics and history with you all the time. I would utterly refute the idea that my interest in warfare even approaches my interest in those things.