>Peter M grumbled:
>Hey Peter, Want to try and keep it a little more civil? This is the
>second person that you have insulted now.
If they don't want to be grumbled at, then they shouldn't play make-believe games about what I'm supposed to believe. I do make allowances for the odd misinterpretation but when it's done so frequently, it becomes quite annoying.
> Read on and see how you like being talked to that way....
I'm sorry, but in attempting to act as a digest cop, you have only made a fool of yourself.
> > >Okay, even assuming that the clan has broken into sub-herds, I
> > >cannot see these herds being more than a mile or two apart.
> > Considering that you and Martin were talking about a thousand
> > strong clans at the minimum, I do think the horse herds would
> > be spread out a lot further than that.
>I was talking about the "sub-herds" not the clans.
You referred to the sub-herds as "these herds" and my "horse herds" was a reference to these sub-herds. To wit, I do think that the sub-herds would be spread out a lot further than you describe.
> > > I think that even a small sub-clan should be able to muster a dozen
> > >or a score of mounted archers.
> > Given that the Rathori have the better bows, this is hardly going
> > to make them quake in their bearskins.
>Who says they are better?
Player's Book: Genertela Book gives the Rathori the Longbow whereas the Pentans and CharUn only have a composite bow.
>The Turkish (and Mongol) composite bows were nearly as
>good, if not as good, as the longbow.
But the CharUn are neither Turkish nor Mongols.
>And there is a hell of a difference between a mounted archer
>and a foot archer.
The relevance as to how this affects who has the better bow is what?
>And, "if you had read further" you would have
>seen the part where the mounted archers harry the raiders and while the
>raiders are shooting at the archers they are not running away or gathering
>loot.
This depends on the archers actually maneuvering the Rathori into position which is by no means a given.
> > Your CharUn do not invoke the spirits before they set out? Does
>Let's see, "my cousin is being attacked by raiders and needs my
>help"....CHARGE!!
And not bother with invoking his charms to make the horse run faster? Or to help him see at night?
>Besides, the spirits are already integrated or in fetishes.
And using these is not instantaneous.
> > Does the Leader not take time to determine where the Rathori are?
>Sure he does, "Chief, my dad sent me! We are being raided over there!!
>We saw 5-hands of them."
I'm sorry but we're discussing a sub-herd in which the Rathori might be in the vicinity (as might be evidenced by leader), not when the CharUn are calling upon another subherd for help against a raid. What does the leader do then?
> > What happens if an outrider fails to return from a patrol? Do you
> > guard the camp on the basis that he has been hit by a Rathori? Or do
> > you send out a search party to wake him up?
>Yes, both.
Thus your subherd will become knackered after your men have responded to numerous false alarms.
> > For the Rathori who live in the east, they really don't have a choice
> > about who to raid.
>Everybody has a choice. If it is suicidal to go into the steppe then they
>will go elsewhere.
But I believe that it isn't suicide so they would raid.
> > The CharUn are close buddies to the decadent Lunar Empire yet
> > in all of Erigia, there is not one single clack plundered from
> > the fall of Boldhome?
>Kept in a belt pouch or a sack.
From this and other responses, I realize that you think that the CharUn have only those trinkets and valuables that they can carry upon themselves. I disagree strongly and think that their tents contain full of spare weapons, trinkets, clothing and other stuff. They have plenty of spare capacity on their horses when they need to move.
> > > The CharUn have a higher
> > > technology than the Rathori as can be seen in their clothing
> > > (worked leather and crude hides). Hence CharUn leather goods will
> > > have value in Rathori society.
>Maybe Canadians read this differently than you do but this sentence
>says that the Char Un have worked leather and the Rathori do not.
Look at the pictures of the Rathori in the Player's Book: Genertela (p9) and tell me what the Rathori is wearing? Also look up neolithic technology and ponder on how improved the CharUn leather-working might be.
> > All [CharUn clothing] has to be is _better_ than the clothing that the
> > Rathori can make themselves to be desirable.
>It has to be better enough to risk your life to get it. Is it?
Raiding the CharUn is not a suicidal activity, so it's something they would raid for, yes.
> > >Yea, I forgot my son! NOT!!
> > "I thought he was with _you_!"
>Oh please. If the son is old enough to ride then he is obviously with
>the father. If he is not then he is rather obviously still with the
>mother. We are not talking about tourists at Bondi beach here.
But little children still do get lost or mislaid (part of high infant mortality). I do not see why the CharUn should somehow be a miraculous exception.
> > >Well, I worked on a farm as I said. We had holstein, herford and angus
> > >cattle (red and black). Besides the amount of milk they put out there
> > >was no significant difference in the breeds.
> > Yet Steve Lieb criticizes me for implying all the CharUn horses are
> > less than 99% alike. But you've already admitted one key difference.
>"your inability to understand what was written..." The only difference I
>mentioned was the amount of milk produced.
Which is a significant difference is most people's books. Besides whatever happened to my counterpoint using a Jersey for beef if you think that there's no real difference?
>Does this affect how much weight the horse could carry? No.
>Does it affect the horses' ability to take a rider? No.
Cattle do come in a variety of sizes and so specialized horses would likewise.
>Steve and I were using the cattle example to smash your "silly" arguement.
If you've "smashed" it, I haven't seen any example of a debris. Furthermore your and Steve's arguments are exclusive.
> > >And that it today in an industrial society where we have the time and
> > >money to breed cattles for specific purposes.
> > Breeding cattle for speciality is not an industrial trend.
>Then why would it be a barbarian trend?!
It is not a trend limited to industrial times which your statement implied. Different breeds of cattle were around before industrial times.
Powered by hypermail