Skip to comments.
Scientists: T-Rex couldn't move fast
CNN ^
Posted on 02/27/2002 10:29:03 AM PST by RoughDobermann
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:00:10 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-150 next last
To: Scully
We once were owned by an iguana named Chuck...When he reached the fine length of 4' (nose to tail-tip) I found I could no longer control him physically Where you his property all along, or did he force you to sign some kind of paperwork after you lost control over him?
To: medved
It turns out that gravity is some sort of an electrostatic dipole effect and not a basic force in nature... Unless you can cite a real science source for this, I have to raise the BS detector flag.
To: medved
You got those Belgians and Clydesdales in jousts but it's never been clear to me whether or not Europeans ever made extensive use of anything like that in real wars. Oh, they did. Agincourt in 1415 is a good example of the shortcomings of the heavy mounted knight, though. Henry V, with a force of about 6,000 mostly lightly-armed archers, met a French force of about 25,000, mostly armored cavalry and some infantry. The combination of the English longbowmen and the extremely muddy conditions of the battle (and the fact that the French couldn't agree on who was supposed to be leading them) meant that, when all was said and done, Henry had taken about 200 casualties, and the French, nearly 6,000. Once the knights were unhorsed, they were in serious danger - the mud made it difficult to get back up, especially with others on top of you. So they were particularly vulnerable to the English footmen rushing in to slip a dagger between the joints of their armor. And probably for as many as were killed by the English, there were just as many who literally drowned in the mud.
That lack of mobility you cite was also apparent during the Crusades - the light cavalry of the Saracens gave the Euros fits. The Mongols, et cetera, did indeed use a different style of warfare, but that was the European model. With the introduction of the longbow, and later the cannon, the days of the heavy mounted knight were definitely numbered - by the late 15'th century, they were pretty much gone, abandoned in favor of archers, light infantry, and some much lighter cavalry.
Comment #124 Removed by Moderator
To: null and void
Probably not really close to as much as 500 pounds. The problem was, to really armor a horse in an effective way is difficult and expensive. It meant plating or chain-mailing the body of the horse, which would have been extremely heavy when added to the weight of the knight and his gear. So typically what you would see was, if the thing was armored at all, it would have a sort of helmet to protect the head, occasionally a piece (a "crinet") to protect the neck, and, rarely, a breastplate (the "peytrel") to protect the chest as well. Most of them made do with just a chamfron-style helmet for the horse, though - like
this one. All told, that's really not that much more weight to do it that way.
There were monstrosities like this ca. 1450 Italian piece, but realistically, they were hugely expensive, and beyond the reach of most knights - having such a thing would be very much a status symbol, and would have been pretty rare. Besides, by the time full-blown horse armor like that was being deployed, the heavy mounted knight was, again, on his way to extinction anyway.
Comment #126 Removed by Moderator
To: Alex Murphy
We became his property the moment he laid eyes on that first carton of cottage cheese...which is to say, during his first meal in our home. :)
127
posted on
02/28/2002 9:58:45 AM PST
by
Scully
To: general_re
Agreed. By less than 500 lbs, I meant that even the most extreme extravegant use of arms, armor, tack, and decoration it is certainly a lot less than 1000 lbs., illustrating and supporting medved's point...
To: RoughDobermann
How does this so called "knowledge" help mankind? What a waste of time. If science can't cure a disease or invent a longer lasting light bulb, what good is it???
To: Pinlighter
How about heat dissipation? A warm blooded mammal of dino size would cook in it's own juices. The really big mammals are water cooled...
To: null and void
Also, bubbles in amber indicate the oxygen content of the air was higher in those days. Maybe dinos were effectively turbocharged...
To: ColdSteelTalon
"What good is a new born baby?" Michael Faraday, when asked what good is his new electromagnet...
To: xcon
Show the peer review, or it is just BS... My peers, or yours?
133
posted on
02/28/2002 10:13:20 AM PST
by
medved
To: medved
I thought that you are peerless...
Comment #135 Removed by Moderator
To: general_re
As I've read it, the French at Agincourt basically charged into a funnel-shaped field and the English just sat there and shot them as they reached the point at which they all got stuck in the funnel; probably several thousand of them would have died even if no English had been there and they'd only been required to plant their lances in straw targets.
136
posted on
02/28/2002 10:49:58 AM PST
by
medved
To: medved
Sort of. Charles of France wasn't there, so on the morning of October 25'th, the French had spent several hours arguing amongst themselves about who exactly was in charge of them - they heavily outnumbered the English, and expected to win easily, so everyone wanted to claim the glory of victory. This was, BTW, after sitting in their saddles all night long and arguing about the same thing, because nobody wanted to dismount and get their precious armor muddy.
Now, by about 10:00 or so, Henry got rather tired of waiting for the French to figure out what they were going to do, so he had his archers move up on the field, so as to be closer to the French. There, they set up their stakes that they used to defend themselves against cavalry charges, and loosed a few flights of arrows at the French. At that point, the French broke out in a completely disorganized charge towards the English, across this sea of mud, and straight into the stakes that the English archers had set up.
IMO, the role of the longbow is somewhat overblown, particularly by English historians. It will penetrate armor nicely, but it has to be done at fairly close range to do so. The real culprit at Agincourt was the French arrogance and disorganization. But, what goes around comes around - a generation later, the French would have much more success against the English...
To: null and void
My point is that there might be a little more going on than the model shows. Hmmmm. I wonder if their computer models are more accurate than those used to "predict" weather trends far into the future that will cause "global warming," yet can't "predict" weather that's already happened?
To: null and void
"What good is a new born baby?" Michael Faraday, when asked what good is his new electromagnet...
That is simply a straw man argument, Finding out if a long extinct animal had the ability to run, is not comparable with human invention of a device. Devices being created can be used to invent other items, which can have a quantifiable benefit to mankind...
So I say again, what good is the knowledge of how t-rex "may" have moved when it contributes nothing to invention or making our lives any better.
To: medved
Ah... the "Static Cling Theory" of life, the universe and everything. Came to you one day while cleaning out the dryer lint trap, did it?
140
posted on
02/28/2002 12:50:03 PM PST
by
Junior
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-150 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson