View Full Version : 50 Reasons why LOTR Sucked

Scabrous Birdseed
12-12-2002, 00:37:19


Scabrous Birdseed
12-12-2002, 00:40:47
Nice TTT review too.


12-12-2002, 01:00:59
That is surprisingly unfunny.

12-12-2002, 09:41:57
That is really lame. Really really lame.

12-12-2002, 10:03:35
"The Battle Droid Syndrome.

The mutated muscular soldiers of Mordor turned out to be hilariously ineffective soldiers, a dozen of them held off by a single dying human. Apparently they made the beasts by crossing Orcs, Goblins and the French. "

that's one of the US stereotypes I don't get about France. The fact we got beaten on the ground by the Germans in 40 (as the rest of the world, England and US included (kasselrine), for a good 3 years) doesn't mean we are 'poor soldiers'. We ramsacked Europe and most of the world long enough to get some respect, esp. from the US who did not complain about our fighting abilities in Yorktown.

Ok, I don't know why I had the urge to say that, I don't really give a fly. Really unfunny article, by the way.

12-12-2002, 10:25:56
That article is the shittiest attempt at satire/sarcasm I think I've read in many a year. Utter dross.

I don't think the English consider the French to be poor fighters - we had enough Wars with the French over the centuries ;)

Scabrous Birdseed
12-12-2002, 11:43:48
It seemed funny when I was drunk last night.

13-12-2002, 03:58:06
I thought it was funny. It is the perfect mocking of all the people that are spewing the worst crap about LOTR.

13-12-2002, 09:29:38
It's very badly done I think.

13-12-2002, 09:42:09
Originally posted by FunkyFingers
That article is the shittiest attempt at satire/sarcasm I think I've read in many a year. Utter dross.

I don't think the English consider the French to be poor fighters - we had enough Wars with the French over the centuries ;)

I think they even won a couple of battles...

13-12-2002, 09:56:31
ah, this film thread

YES WE DID, you just have a better marketing service than we do, so we all know of Azincourt but not of Castillon

13-12-2002, 10:20:19
Isn't the difference that you outnumbered us at both battles? :cute:

13-12-2002, 10:27:05
the difference between the two is one man : Shakespeare
the numbers were comparable in Castillon

frankly, who knows of it, apart from Medieval history buffs?

yet it was one of the worst defeat ever of the English army, a total rout and 4000 dead against 100 deads for the French (quite comparable to Azincourt, in reverse).

13-12-2002, 10:32:54
A lot of sites on the internet where I just looked it up. ;)

Was that your last victory? ;)

13-12-2002, 10:35:03
From what I read, Talbot was attacking well fortified French positions without his own artillery. Sounds like he was a bit of a twat. And that the French commander planned his ambush very effectively.

13-12-2002, 10:43:09
Talbot was a very good commander, but
1/ he was very impetuous (although in his mid 70s')
2/ because he was old, he hadn't adapted to the recent change in the role of artillery : Castillon was the first battle where artillery won it on the ground (before, it was used only as siege weapons).

You'll find sites on it on internet because you find everything there, including sites on Elvis being abducted by giant alien squids, but I bet that 90% of posters here (a very bright bunch) know of Azincourt, and 2% of Castillon.

Last battle we won against the brits would be during Napoleonic times, I guess, probably during the Spanish campaign (even if we had a torrid time there and finally got kicked out). We only fought alongside since then, which suits me fine...

13-12-2002, 10:47:14
True, 1808 - 11 Wellington struggled but the French army in the Peninsula was 250,000 Wellington (as he became later) never had more than 50,000

13-12-2002, 10:47:44
Fighting alongside is fine. :beer:

13-12-2002, 11:01:50
yep, that's why he used guerrila tactics, with the support of the locals : it's much easier this way, esp when the other has the occupying job to do (and therefore cannot concentrate its forces). First example of tactics later used by Giap in Indochina, Mao in China, etc. Actually I thought Wellington was at his best in this campaign, while his victory in Waterloo owed a lot to chance and Napo fucking up

on the fighting alongside, we'll do much more as the meeting in St Malo in 99 seems to point out

13-12-2002, 11:05:58
Absolutely. Although his Indian campaigns were also pretty impressive on occasion. The peninsula campaigns he was attacking which is always harder. I think if Napoleon had actually fought Wellington before Waterloo he might have changed his tactics. As it was he really fucked that up quite badly.

13-12-2002, 11:13:40
I think Napo later observed that in W. everything that could have gone wrong did (therefore reiventing Murphy's law).

I use to wargame a lot, specifically on this belgium campaign ('clash of arms' games) and it seems easier to win than loose with the French. But anyway, even a Napo victory would have simply delayed the inevitable.