[TheAzn]

I am not sure how useful my responses will be, but I will give it a try.

Originally Posted by jallanite

One difficulty is that the physics you showed in your original diagram is nonsense.

I would suggest that you re read all of my arguments carefully again. My very first diagram would indeed be nonsense if they were all firing the same load and experiences the same air friction. As I clarified later on, the combination of height, lighter loads and less air friction on the higher walls can increase range significantly. I have admitted that it was partly my fault for mentioning only height as a significant factor in my first post. I have since then gone out of my way to provide greater clarifications. I do not understand how you could have unintentionally missed all of this.

Originally Posted by TheAzn

Hey Galadriel55. Besides a few things, I pretty much agree with what you said, but there are a few problems. Before expressing your opinion on who is more accurate, please have the courtesy to wait and ask for more clarity. Before I continue, I would like to say that I am at fault also. I should have been more clearer in my OP. As stated in my later post, there is less air friction the higher up you go. My drawing takes this fact into account. But more important is the fact that the catapults in my drawing were meant to not shoot the same loads. I guess I have to make some edits for my drawings.
And yes, I am saying that the Gondorians can use even lighter loads than the Mordorians to bombard , while the Mordorians can only cause “little” damage with their light but still heavier loads. I will explain more below in what will be my great responses to the general arguments made against me.

.................................................. ...............................

Galadriel55 produced a much better image and your new image does little more than copy it, without acknowledgement that you were very, very, very wrong.

I made my revised edition similar to Galadriel55’s drawing partly because she is more right in a certain aspect, and partly because I don’t want to cause any more tension. In my revised drawing, all of the Gondorian artilleries at the back were handicapped by shooting the same load as the artilleries on the front, though all are lighter than the projectiles of the Mordorians. If I have wanted to, I could change this aspect and make each artilleries fire lighter loads the further back they are. For example, those in the Lower Levels can fire 9 lbs stone; meanwhile, those in the far back can fire 4 lb stones, twice as light. Given the fact that there is a limit to how weak the Gondorian artilleries can be (and how strong the Mordorian artilleries can be) not only is it possible for 3 levels (not including the Upper Deck) of Gondorian artilleries to outrange the Mordorian ones, it is possible that they might even outrange the Mordorians as spectacularly as is illustrated in my first crude drawing. I did not post this idea at first because I do not want to create fights. But now I must post. This is not to say that Galadriel55’s drawing is very inaccurate; she is accurate as long as she is talking about artilleries firing the same heavy projectiles. But her simulation cannot be stated as being more accurate than mine since she is missing a lot of important factors that I have included. If I have made some mistakes I am not much worse than Gal, contrary to some arrogant person’s statements.

Claiming that criticisms of your arguments have been disputed without indicating where doesn’t work with me.

Usually, I said that because it is true. Most people here seems to be very impatient. They tend to argue with me even when I am not done with another person. Often, the "new arguments" of the second person is the same as the that of the first. Still, I will try to respond to every single person on the threads. But sometimes I don't feel like reiterating things, and will let the "new debator" know that his arguments have already been refuted. Ultimately, it is your responsibility to read the posts carefully and understand who is responding to who. You may ask kindly for help if there is too much to read.

Mostly you appear to just ignore criticism and jump to irrelevancies that a falling palantír would almost certainly kill a man if it hit him straight on.

Ignore criticism? I spend some of my valuable time responding and refuting most of the people’s post and yet I am ignoring criticism? I would kindly suggest that you retract your statements.

And what irrelevancies? In case you do not remember, one of the points that miss Gal kept on repeating was that, because they only need to fling light materials like human heads, the Mordorians can outrange the Gondorians. I refuted her arguments by stating what should have been the obvious: the Gondorians most likely used light projectiles as well. There is of course, a problem with this rebuttal. The Mordorian projectiles were not meant to cause physical damages, while the Gondorian projectiles must. This is when I brought in the palantir as an easy to understand example. Can light Gondorian projectiles cause substantial damages? The answer is absolutely yes, and most of the last page are dedicated to me giving the evidences.

You are only assuming that Minas Tirith even had siege engines.

Yes, I am assuming, the same way I am assuming that the peoples of the Middle Earth do have a need to release waste, which is not an assumption at all.

The text doesn’t back up your assumption anywhere.

Actually it does. Professor Tolkien does not have to explicitly write everything before we can logically and reasonably assume that such things exist. The need for Men to defecate is just one example.
So what are my evidences?
1) Even without the threat of Mordorian artilleries, there are still overwhelming incentives for the Gondorians to build the best artilleries possible. These incentives are the threats of the Mumakils,armored trolls and siege towers, all of which the archers themselves cannot handle alone. Like all human beings, I presume that the Gondorians would respond to strong incentives. And this presumption is most likely sound, for a lot of ancient cities with sizeable walls very likely had artilleries on them. See post below for evidence.
2) Although Minas Tirith has not been besieged in a long time, the other important cities surrounding the area most likely experienced sieges frequently. This alone creates many chances for artilleries to be invented (if they are not already) and enhanced.
3) Despite the incentives, it is true there would not be much artilleries if there are no spaces. Non-essential building could have been torn away create more space. The Ship Rock is secure and is enhanced by the “a mighty craft”. Based on the description of the book itself, there are no lack of spaces on the Upper Deck. With such overwhelming incentives to use artilleries, and not much reasonable hindrances, Gondor most likely did use artilleries on Minas Tirith.
4) Finally, it is a fact that building respectable ancient artilleries is not really hard. Even Highschool students can build such devices. With such overwhelming incentives to use artilleries, and not much reasonable hindrances, Gondor most likely did use artilleries on Minas Tirith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWXEqJlj8pM

Quite likely it can be taken as something that should go without saying, but in medieval accounts of siege warfare that I have read almost all the siege engines were in the hands of the attackers, not in the hands of the defenders.

Then the account that you have read is not quite accurate. It was actually quite common even during the Ancient Era for walled cities to have artilleries.

Seemingly siege engines were far more useful for attackers to use against fortress walls than for defenders to use against moving targets, as seems reasonable to my thinking and to those of some others here.

Ah, this same point again. No, what you are thinking is not reasonable. As stated, artilleries on walls are more common than what you just give them credit for.

Diagrams of siege engines on the top of Minas Tirith don’t prove anything when an accurate diagram shows that a siege engine lobbing a rock would lob it just as far if the siege engine was on an outer wall. The first throw might well kill 10 or 20 of the foe at most. Then the foe would see the stones were coming and get out of the way. When using a catapult to lob stones at the walls, walls don’t run away. The foe can find somewhere they think there is a weak point, and keep lobbing at the same place, hoping that the stone will crack there.

I think that this is the clearest example demonstrating the problems of your post. You haven’t been reading my arguments carefully at all. I have already talked about range countless times, and will not go through with this again. As for killing 10 or 20 people, I believe that you are mistaken. Yes, I did say that the Gondorian artillery can be use to kill individual soldiers with the help of archery. However, the main purpose was to destroy or kill large targets like Mumakils, armored trolls, siege towers and artilleries. Sure, all of these are mobile, but they are relatively slow, and are easy targets for the Gondorian Artillerymen.

But Tolkien explains clearly why this tactic is not used at Minas Tirith. Here the walls had been built too strongly.

Correct. I did not disagree with this.

It seems to be a fact in medieval and older battles that siege engines were not greatly used by the defenders in a siege.

Again, you are quite mistaken. To reiterate, it was actually quite common even during the Ancient Era for walled cities to have artilleries.

If you think I and others are wrong, and in theory we might be, then point out historical counter-examples.

Sure. No problem.

Just saying Tolkien was wrong in his writing, was horrendous beyond words, doesn’t convince me at all. Those are only the empty words of someone who has provided no evidence that Tolkien was wrong.

Right, and I never said those words without evidence. The quote that you cite is my conclusion after several posts worth of arguing my points.

That historically defenders of a besieged fortress didn’t greatly rely on siege engines seems to be the best evidence that siege engines were less useful in the defense of a fortress than you imagine.

Look, I am sorry to say you seemed to be getting your facts quite mixed up. Again, artilleries on walls are actually quite common at least during the Ancient Era.

Claiming that your posts support your arguments when they don’t doesn’t strengthen your arguments.

Yes, I know. This is why I only claim that my posts supported my arguments when they really do.