I just don't understand how Dwarves as a people could exist in a pre-blackpowder setting and not get enslaved by a larger race.
They're literal manlets, who will always be physically dominated by the taller races. There's no way they should be able to exist as free people.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
In open combat? Probably. But if Dwarves are controlling mountain mines or other defensive positions and survive off cave vegetation, that's a different story.
This. See how much an advantage being a larger race gets you when you’re fighting in 4ft high tunnels
>Invading race has thumbs, tools and malnourished workers
>smokes you out
>drops the props in the next room and seals it up waiting for you.
>when the smoke backclasts back out to you, they use the sally port cunningly hidden in he rock on the other side to outflank you and then catch you in the middle of their armies.
>literally digs tunnels into your city, spoiling the women while the men hide their holes
>outdigging dwarves
>imagining the dwarf women aren't going to murder you too in full armour and kit
Just how quickly do you think you can tunnel through rock? They will be waiting for you when you manage to break through, and they will greet you with fire.
History knows greater surprises than that, my good armchair theorist fellow.
I think you're kind of underestimating how resilient reinforced fortifications can be. Even with the development of gas weapons, flamethrowers and bunker busters, basic fortifications have still proved remarkably resilient well into the 60s-70s (and arguably beyond). It's not like you can't design a tunnel network or fortress to have ventilation and compartmentalization against gas/smoke attack - hell, the Viet Cong did remarkably well in this regard given their relatively limited resources.
By comparison, there's no telling what systems or designs an entire race dedicated to masonry/excavation would be able to come up with, especially when their survival hinges on their ability to fortify well. It's also highly unlikely that they'll just coop up inside waiting for you to hunt down every last ventilation shaft - night attacks, ballista emplacements and other measures would be constantly harassing your forces.
Saying that you can just smoke them out is like saying you can win any duel by just stabbing the enemy to death. Yes, it's technically true - but are they going to let you?
Fascinating. More underground real life lore, please.
Pretty much this. Dwarves are already naturally reclusive, so you'd rarely see them in open combat and sieges against castles are almost impossible if you can't starve them let alone a castle that is built into a mountain.
homie you ever fight a chimp? They're strong enough to pull a man's arm out of its socket. Imagine fighting a chimp in plate armor swinging a fricking sledgehammer at your knees.
dwarves are doing pike and shot when everyone else is doing wave suicide attacks. just with crossbows instead of guns.
Fpbp
Kino
When the Romans first met the Celtic barbarians, they were in awe of the size and physical statue of these savage peoples. Some openly wondered how the short Romans could stand against such brutes.
Turns out that the tall die just as quick as the short when you stab them. And so, a new Latin phrase was made: et sanguis gigantis ruber est
>Even the giant’s blood is red
This,
Physical height may be an advantage in some scenarios but not all. In warfare, technology, organization and physical strength mean a hell of a lot more.
>Turns out that the tall die just as quick as the short when you stab them. And so, a new Latin phrase was made: et sanguis gigantis ruber est
>>Even the giant’s blood is red
I can't find any mention of this by googling it
Have you heard of this cool new place called the library? They’ve got hip things called books! You might try ‘em out sometime
That's because I made it up.
That's proper Latin, though it might not be a historical phrase
You must understand that Ganker is just Reddit with a different coat of paint.
Unfortunately, this mostly a myth. Pretty much all of the preening by Roman writers about the barbaric vitality of the Celts is actually down to angry political types of the time trying to push their agendas by creating a narrative where all the things the disliked in their society were making Romans weak or soft.
Consensus scholarship is that the Celts were on average shorter due to their less stable diets.
Even if they had less “stable” diets, genetic predisposition would be enough to exhibit a difference in height. See china/denmark.
You can’t just attribute all physical difference to ideological-minded wishful thinking…
Genetic trends are literally formed by diet and other outside influences, bruh. That's how natural selection works.
In various areas of Asia, for example, people are getting much taller than they were in previous generations, primarily because the overall diet of the region is changing drastically. This has nothing to do with ideology, this is basic science. If you disagree with consensus scholarship on the matter, go out, get your degree, and assemble a tenable countertheory strong enough to displace the current one.
“… and other outside influences”
That’s the issue dude, if you provide the same level of nutrition to all populations you wouldn’t eliminate variance, would you? So how then can an observed contemporary disparity in height be so casually disregarded as fictional, entirely based in ideological supposition of an ancient culture?
>So how then can an observed contemporary disparity in height be so casually disregarded as fictional
Nothing about this is casual. There are entire fields of study that have assembled vast amounts of data toward this end.
>ideological supposition
Nothing about this is ideological either. I suspect it might be for you, as you're bringing that up, but that's not the case for everyone.
You yourself posited the ideological supposition on behalf of the romans. That is where ideological supposition enters the conversation.
If skeletal remains bare out an identical proportion between roman/celtic populations, it’s as simple as that, and I wouldn’t dispute such evidence. In absence of that direct evidence, your or anyone else’s post-hoc rationalisations of documented contemporary accounts amount to little more than speculation.
>You yourself posited the ideological supposition on behalf of the romans
Oh, I see. Well, that's fairly strongly documented.
>If skeletal remains bare out an identical proportion between roman/celtic populations
Skeletal remains show similar heights with variation within. 'Celts' existed across a pretty vast range of land, as did Romans, and this meant their heights covered a large range too.
As someone born of the southwestern edge of England, I am likely descended of both celtic & roman stock in good measure & would think myself unlikely to be particularly biased toward one population or the other.
>As someone born of the southwestern edge of England
Huh, me too.
Not so surprising I suppose, we are discussing a topic deeply related to our own ancestry.
Just to be clear, I’m not supposing a specific dynamic here. Just challenging what’s been presented in the thread.
If celtic skelebros are documentedly IDENTICAL on a population level to roman ones then that’s that. Nobody has suggested that is the case so far, though confident statements about the relative heights of these populations have been made…
>If celtic skelebros are documentedly IDENTICAL on a population level to roman ones
My understanding is that they show the same variance levels. Which is unsurprising since neither are concentrated populations.
It should be noted though that Romans are sorta cheating by having way more intake from outside populations.
I'd like to add to this: we have pretty convincing record for the average height of a Roman Legionnaire being 5'10" (believe it or not, this was actually something Romans were really anal about. There's even been leaders that have specifically assembled legions of people that are abnormally tall for the time - the famous example would be Nero with his 'six-footers').
Heights among the 'barbarian' soldiery further west seem to fluctuate in the area of 5'7". Some tribes were definitely taller, but again, it turns out that almost all of this is down to diet - tribes in area where diet leaned more heavily on mutton were considered abnormally tall. This is true of basically everywhere in the world.
Supposing that because average heights are increasing due to nutrition that all height variance is due to nutrition is about as reasonable as alleging that because height trends upwards over time that height is directly proportional to societal development.
Which it’s not… we won’t be 7’+ in 100 or 1000 years time, just as a consequence of time passed, or even as a consequence of nutrition. At a certain point you just get fat.
>Supposing that because average heights are increasing due to nutrition that all height variance is due to nutrition
Bruh, put that strawman down. Where did anyone say that ALL height variance is nutrition? What was said is that the two are interlinked, and one causes changes in the other.
Historically, nutrition has been proven to be the primary influence in overall height. This doesn't mean people within a population can't have genetic variances, though these variances will too be influenced by previous dietary trends.
So within populations genetic factors play a significant role, yet between populations they disappear? Interesting.
“Strawman” eh? To definitively state that celts were shorter than romans due to nutrition (the argument I’m disputing), would be to disregard a possible height difference based on preexisting genetic factors.
It’s possible (excluding direct & extensive skeletal proof) that the romans had a (contemporary) documented nutritional advantage & yet maintained a lesser average height due to preexisting genetic difference on the population level.
>So within populations genetic factors play a significant role, yet between populations they disappear?
homie where was this said? What was said is that overall trends for populations are more influenced by diet, and diet is also one of the factors that shapes genetics.
You are chasing your own tail here.
If that’s all that was posited then the statement that roman/celtic height difference existed in the roman’s favour, in contradiction to all contemporary accounts, based solely on observed nutritional difference (as was stated) is necessarily a statement of speculation.
>in contradiction to all contemporary accounts
It's not really in contradiction to all contemporary accounts. The claim that Celts were giants was not a universal one.
>is necessarily a statement of speculation
To the extent that all history is speculation, sure.
>concession that only the vast majority of contemporary accounts dispute personal theory
>lack of awareness that contemporary accounts would tend to favour the society of origin rather than the opposite
>broad equivocation that “all history is speculation”
Yeah you’re full of shit.
>concession that only the vast majority of contemporary accounts dispute personal theory
Where?
>lack of awareness that contemporary accounts would tend to favour the society of origin
This ignores a ton of nuance. For example, we have people today insisting that their own societies are terrible and bad and need to learn from the example of [x] other people.
>broad equivocation that “all history is speculation”
That's what your point does come down to unfortunately. If what we know about height's relationship to diet being mapped to populations and their surroundings is speculation, then this is just a statement that history is speculation.
>Where?
In that no examples are referenced obliquely or directly in the opposite direction. Am I supposed to consider evidence you never presented?
>people today insisting that their own societies are terrible and bad
Which one would have to acknowledge exist in minority relative to the direct opposite…
>That's what your point does come down to unfortunately
Only if you suggest that evidence suggests diet as the sole relevant factor in relation to height variance between populations
Diet being the primary factor in height variance does not exclude the possibility (supported by PRIMARY sources) that a significant genetic predisposition existed between celtic & (native, as that is the perspective from which cultural product is produced) roman populations.
You have to suppose that diet is the only relevant factor, if you posit that that factor alone is enough to assume a DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY state of affairs to most contemporary accounts.
>concession that only the vast majority of contemporary accounts dispute personal theory
Is this saying that you think the vast majority of sources call Celts giants? If so, that's not the case. The understanding of this Celtic giant idea comes primarily from the writings of just a few guy - some of whom, like Tacitus, never even met the people they were talking about and have no real sourcing of their own. Others, like Caesar, have intense personal stake in the matter - it's likely no coincidence that all the people Caesar calls giant big-limbed superwarriors are the ones he smashed easily, whereas he downplays all the tribes that actually gave him trouble or that were peaceable.
There isn't actually good evidence for the idea that most Romans thought Celts were giants. Especially since we know based on dig site results that they just weren't.
>Which it’s not… we won’t be 7’+ in 100 or 1000 years time
I could easily see this happening because tall guys frick more
>angry political types of the time trying to push their agendas by creating a narrative
The more things change...
Yep, and in 500 years time future scholars will insist that Frodo & Sam had a subtextual homosexual relationship supported by the analysis of “contemporary” (30+ years post) scholars in blatant contradiction to what was written in the actual source.
Ideological speculation from later scholars is fricking worthless & only exists to project & reinforce current attitudes on to historical documents.
Roman politics is basically identical to current Western politics. Which makes their banter remarkably fun to read.
This kinda depends on how short dwarves actually are. Being 5 ft. flat may be embarrassing for a man, but it reallydoesn't matter much in pitched battle where your pike will be doing most of the world anyway.
Roman and Celtic fighters were about the same size though. Remember that Romans were pulling their troops from a very wide pool.
>et sanguis gigantis ruber est
/thread
That isn’t real Latin, anon
But it is
>and
The translate bot doesn't get poetic nuance
dwarves even have the classic roman flex where they build a fortified bridge across an impassable river in a day, march a legion across in formation, and demolish it on the other side.
>flex
Anon… the Romans were retreating after a humiliating campaign of marching around in the woods and accomplishing nothing
They did that when they went and smashed a German army
The frick are you talking about? Ceasar fought no armies east of the Rhine
>Crossbowman
>man
You mean Crossbowdwarf
>Crossbowdwarf
>dwarf
You mean Crossbowdwarfess
Fantasy Dwarfs are almost universally stronger pound for pound than a man.
>pound for pound
"Pound for pound" is a cope made up by featherweight and lightweight fighters who are too afraid to step into the ring with the heavier weight classes.
Dwarves are also almost always heavier despite their size, they're denser.
>"Pound for pound" is a cope made up by featherweight and lightweight fighters who are too afraid to step into the ring with the heavier weight classes.
That's great, when you're talking about MAN vs MAN. Dwarves aren't men. Guess what happens when someone tries to fight unarmed against a chimp, even when that chimp isn't close to being in the same weight class? Yeah, the chimp dominates their ass.
Are you kidding me? I’ll FRICK up a chimp, easy.
a chimp's grip strength and muscle density in general blow human body builders out of the water
you absolutely will not beat a chimp in a fight, you're either trolling or moronic
Sorry you guys are weak, but I’m built different.
I will kill that chimp
I doubt it, but I'd pay a fiver in and a fiver for popcorn to see you try.
The chimp will FRICK you easy. Your consent is not a factor.
>"Chimps are incredibly strong and fast so humans are easily overpowered."
>Indeed, chimpanzees have been shown to be about four times as strong as humans comparable in size, according to evolutionary biologist Alan Walker, formerly of Pennsylvania State University.
>Research suggests the difference in strength between the two lies in the muscle performance.
>In chimps, the muscle fibers closest to the bones -- those deemed to be the source of strength of both chimps and humans – are much longer and more dense, so a chimp is able to generate more power using the same range of motion, Ross of the Lester Fisher Center said.
>Also, unlike humans, chimpanzees have less control over their muscles. As a result, sometimes chimps use more of their muscle strength than necessary, according to Walker's theory, published 2009 in the journal Current Anthropology.
yeah bro you got this
exactly, this is why we are all enslaved by chimpanzees
IT'S A MAD HOUSE!
>enslaved by monkey butt
Very sad, many such cases.
Writing in PNAS journal, Dr Matthew C O'Neill, from the University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, and colleagues reviewed the literature on chimp muscle performance and found that, on average, they are 1.5 times more powerful than humans in pulling and jumping tasks.
They’re also a thousand percent likely to lose to me in a fight.
I’ll frick up a chimp, bro.
The only way you'll "frick up" a chimp is that it's going to be the one up on top while fricking you.
Nope, the chimps fricking dead bro.
Sorry you think so little of yourself, but I could take a chimp
>Sorry you think so little of yourself, but I could take a chimp
you could take a chimp's rape-dick up your ass, maybe
Projecting
Chimps are only stronger than a human their size. The average human male is vastly stronger than a chimp in absolute terms. If the human male is willing to rip the chimp's balls off the chimp stands no chance.
All the broscience about chimps being stronger than men has long since been discarded.
That last bit could also help explain why Dwarves, despite being stronger than humans, are slow as frick runners.
uhm actually, the chimp RIPS you in half. messily.
or it rips your arm off and then beats you to death with your own arm.
Listen? I know you’re a weakling, but I would FRICK UP a chimp, no fricking question.
Chimps deadlift? Chimps run marathons? Thought not.
you try and fight a chimp, after the first punch, it gets mad, and then the next time you try to punch it, it fricking rips your stupid arm off and beats you to death with it.
weak bait, mcgregorsparringwithhalfjorandgettingtossedaround.gif
Glad I didn't have to post this myself, Dwarves are as strong as Men but have a lower center of gravity and shorter arcs of movement.
Try stabbing a dude with a shield and helmet that protect 80% of his figure while he can kneecap you at almost twice your swing-speed. At best you're going to stalemate outside his reach while he outlives your bloodline.
Aren't dwarves in most settings much stronger than humans despite the size difference? Sort of like how an ant or beetle is incredibly powerful for its size, if it were scaled up to human size it would be vastly stronger than a human.
Besides that, the height difference between your average dwarf and a human is only about a foot. There's also the problem of dwarven armor being thicker, stronger, and better than human-style armors. Couple this with dwarven hardiness and their ability to last longer in combat and die slower than the humans. Add in defensive positions located on mountains, often with total control of its heights, and extensive tunnels reaching deep and wide, sometimes enough so to reach other mountains without needing to come to the surface. Can't forget dwarven artillery magics, taming of various "monsters" that live in the mountains and surrounding features.
Earth elemental sapper squads swimming through the earth to pop up int he middle and smash logistics and food supplies. Griffin bombardment from on high. Boulder launchers and collapsable artificial avalanches onto navigable paths. Defensive earthworks reinforced with runic and divine dwarf god magics. Dwarf/dragon alliances. Really, dwarves are perfectly capable of stopping and even destroying a human army.
>Aren't dwarves in most settings much stronger than humans despite the size difference?
No, they are hardier, not stronger. They can outlast people in cardio and stamina but are not actually stronger. Their ability to wear thicker armors is because of this better stamina and better shape to spread the weight across their body.
>They can outlast people in cardio and stamina but are not actually stronger
>They are known for making better tools
>Dwarves beat humans in the two things that put humans on the top of the food chain irl
Dwarfchads, I KNEEL.
>I don’t see how…
That’s because you’re an idiot. It’s not our job to explain basic concepts to you,
>It's not our job
No, but it is our hobby
MAGICS
Why is this old dwarf magician arming himself like something between a schoolchild and a street thug?
Because it looks cool
Old? look at that beard, he's barely 16 in human years
>I just don't understand how Dwarves as a people could exist in a pre-blackpowder setting and not get enslaved by a larger race.
Time to get in the weeds i guess
>Size
Size isn't an inherent advantage and in some cases can even be a disadvantage. Firstly in battle the uses of size and strength aren't the same as a wrestling match. Even if we grant a complete and utter mechanical benefit of strength to lets say orcs (since we're talking height and a perceived strength) you might be right in a 1v1, no armor, no weapons, in an open field. But if thats the situation the orc and dwarf find themselves in there are CLEARLY some larger factors to worry about. An orc being able to even hypothetically absolutly shred a dwarf in terms of strength means nothing if it gets fricking impaled against a shield/spear wall of dwarves. Secondly this situation only gets worse for the orc in this case as you change the battlefield. An orc in a dwarven stronghold? An area made specifically for the benefit of the dwarven citizenry and (depending upon what lore you follow) made specifically to defend against outside attacks by larger creatures? Orcs get absolutely STOMPED even with a massive hypothetical bonus to strength. Thirdly comes the last issue of strength itself. This size difference that you're referring to only really begins to matter when you see a massive difference in size equating to strength. Like our hypothetical orc race in this case needs to be damn near orders of magnitude stronger than dwarves in at least like a <80+% of circumstances for this victory to occur and that difference in strength doesn't occur until you get to like goliath or giant levels of size difference.
>Cont.
Not to mention (and this is kind of a nitpick here) but when species have such massive differences in sizes enough to completely dominate another in the way you're talking about theres a significant numbers advantage to the smaller races. And this is somewhat true in most fantasy lore, goblins are seen as extremely small compared to other races but they way they're depicted is that there's no end to the frickers, hordes and hordes of them exist in most fantasy depictions. So if we're gonna go into this argument that this hypothetical race (orcs or whomever) is that much bigger then it would make sense to argue that they're having a dramatically lower birth rate compared to others.
Your premise is wrong. Given that dwarves are often depicted as being able to see perfectly well in pitch darkness, the real question is how could they not enslave all the other races simply due to being able to conduct nighttime warfighting?
Wars happen over distances greater than 60 feet.
>They're literal manlets, who will always be physically dominated by the taller races. There's no way they should be able to exist as free people.
You say this acting as if warfare is a matter of physical might and force. That's a child understanding of warfare. Dwarves could just as well be logistical masterminds, completely fearless/psychotic, or tactical geniuses that make physical advantages moot.
You also act like there is an inherent drive to enslave everything and all interactions are merely of force to dominate and subjugate others. This is also a childish, Hobbesian view of history and how cultures interact. The Dwarves could just as well forge intense bonds of brotherhood with a fellow, stronger polity leading to their protection, be so religiously driven that outsiders fear to touch them out of respect of their devotions to arcane pantheons, or sit atop mountains of wealth that lead to others desiring trade over warfare. Or they could simply be incredibly friendly people.
Based Hussite poster. People are too quick to say "big stronk muscleman win all time," when things are far more complicated than how swole your lads are in comparison to the other team. Battles and interactions with polities are not the Battle of the Gymrats.
>tactical geniuses
...
CREEEEEEED(S)!
>warfare is a matter of physical might and force. That's a child understanding of warfare
This.
1v1 fighting is about the only domain where physical prowess matters most. even a 1v2 already shifts the focus away from pure size and strength. Add weapons and armor, now strenght plays even less of a role.
In the grand scheme of warfare where economy, logistics, tactics, morale, technology, training, intel and strategy are factors, individual strenght is very negligible, especially when the difference is so miniscule. It's not mouse vs. mammoth but slightly smaller human vs human.
>If you disagree with me you're childish
Low IQ poster spotted
>Latches onto a single sentence and ignores the rest.
Sir, this isn't a theater. No need to project.
>No argument
I accept your concession.
This. Dwarves are also notable craftsman, people don't think they wouldn't be able to find a way to create an invention that would level the playing field? FFS during the Punic War, Rome was utterly shit as a naval power, so to compensate they made the corvus: a hooked platform that would latch on to the enemies ship and have their troops land on it.
>But the Romans later stole the design from the Punics and won using their own tactics against them.
And you're telling me the Dwarves wouldn't use other tactics? These lads may be manlets, but they're built like a brick shit house and have both brains and brawn to boot. Whatever tactic an orc or some human may levvy at the Dwarf, they're likely to respond in kind and develop strategies to counter act it.
>literal manlets
People act as if that is the deciding factor. If you want a real life comparison, a chimpanzee's height is 1,5 m on average and a chimp could literally tear you limb.. Now a dwarf is build (in most fantasy depiction) like a fricking fridge, a dwarf would crush your skull with his bare hands if he wanted to.
Wagon anon, but a chimp would actually be fairly shit at fighting a human on an even playing field because of matters of height. The primary weapon in pregunpowder warfare is polearms, dwarves will always have shorter reach than men along with angle of attack (which would be the case for chimps as well). Walk into a forest, chimps will beat your ass - but if 500 of them tried fighting a phalanx of humans with spears it'd go poorly. Height (or rather, lack of it) precludes one from effectively using bows as well. Greater upper body strength would facilitate more expedient reloading of crossbows, but it's still far from an ideal.
However if you're a race of diminutive manlets that can self-sufficiently exist in arcologies without ever even seeing the sun, fighting humans in pitched battles above ground is a dumb idea. Drag them into tunnels and beat them like stepchildren.
>Walk into a forest, chimps will beat your ass - but if 500 of them tried fighting a phalanx of humans with spears it'd go poorly.
>"yeah but if you give humans weapons and use tactics they slaughter chimps"
What kind of moronic argument is that?
>height/reach is the main feature and contributer to success, because the primary weapon in pregunpowder warfare is polearms
Reach being important as it is, is only so because all irl humans are the same strength, hence a taller human will be both stronger and have a better reach. If chimps were sentient and wielded weapons, warfare would be entirely different. For example, they could effectively sprint and fight in armor and shields so big and heavy that polearms and spears are less of a threat.
Their hardy constitution means that they can march for longer. They can see extremely well at night so they can march and fight in the dark. Their armor and weapons are made better than most othes. They don't age at the same rate as most other people and remain sturdy even into old age so there's a greater percentage of the population that can fight if they need to. They are fond of order and working together resulting in greater group integrity and efficient work distribution.
Other people might be taller but they still reach all the way to the ground.
The question is really why dorfs don't rule the world. The answer is probably it'd be impolite.
>The question is really why dorfs don't rule the world.
Population grows too slow. One war and it would take hundred of years to replace the fallen Dorfs
>Their hardy constitution means that they can march for longer.
But for a shorter distance.
Being short and slow would make Dwarfs terrible fighters.
>The question is really why dorfs don't rule the world. The answer is probably it'd be impolite
A wholesome kek
what's the point of dwarves
90% of the time they are short, sturdy men with beards that like caves and alcohol and also have scottish or northern english accents
Then you're playing them wrong.
I'm not the anon you responded to but I'm curious about what you said, how do you play your dwarves differently? I'm looking for inspiration for my dwarf in roleplay
>I'm looking for inspiration for my dwarf in roleplay
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/autarch/by-this-axe-the-cyclopedia-of-dwarven-civilization
This may be of interest then.
(Dwarven furnacewife class, we'll unlock you yet...)
I dunno about that other anon but it's of interest to me, thanks bro
Keep a note pad by you at all times. Divided it into two catagories.
One is a list of everything negative that has happened to you. The other is everything positive. You keep a record of who has done which. All debts must be paid.
You do not use weapons. Weapons are a thing created that is created to destroy. It is a physical contridiction, an abomination. You use axes, hammers and if all else fails a knife. These are tools that can be used in self defense, their nature is not perverted. You accept that other people don't share your views and use swords and spears and such things, but it's excusable as they just don't know any better.
To create things is to be a dorf. Creation made manifest and perpetuated. Every word writtend down must be considered, every tool made to be best of your ability, every brick laid with precision and care. Lesser people do things that are "good enough". If a dorf did that sloppy shit the priests would come and have a serious word with him.
Oaths are religiously significant. The world is as it is by divine order. You give your word and you must keep your word, if you don't then you have declared the world to be other than it is and this puts you against divine order. Only by a gathering of priests can your oath be released yet unfulfilled and only then due to extenuating circumstances. Lesser people are more free with their words, because they are more like clever animals than people and they don't know the value of thier words.
Magic is held as suspect. Things are as they are by divine order. You can move and shape rock but it's just rearranging the pieces of the world and the ability to do so it the nature of rock. Turning the rock into bread is against the divine order. They aren't against magic, just irrisponsible magic like what elves do.
>Dwarves live in mines
>They need a lot less space than other races
>Other races have to crawl throught their mines
I am genuinely starting to believe this is the containment board for morons
no. /misc/ happened, and reddit regularly shits its morons here as well, so not containment per se, insofar as the entire site is heavily infested with morons. cancerous frickwads.
There are like 10 dwarf threads in the catalog, what's going on?
Most of this board consists of manlets and they demand representation
GW reintroduced space dwarves getting people to think about how cool dwarves are in general.
Last dwarf thread some anon posted a modified shild/axe combo for dwarves fighting taller races.
>shield with curved top and upward-pointed killing spike
>stupid thick helms and cauldrons for added def from high blows
>curved axe with sharpened inner hook for cutting hamstrings
>a funny little back plate to allow another dwarf to plant a foot and come overtop for surprise 2v1s
Pretty fricking practical tbh
85022111
>pre blackpowder
>enslaved
>manlett
BAY LEAF!
Does that negate her digits?
Dwarves have wide and heavy joints and are practically made for armor.
Ok
You ever tried to fight a chimpanzee anon? They're half as tall as a human, but have enough raw strength to tear your arm off with their bare hands. Height isn't everything.
yeah, that’s why humans were historically dominated by chimps and hunted and put in little boxes for their amusement oh wait you’re fricking moronic
protip: bulls and horses are stronger than humans, guess who gets fricked up when push comes to shove
Hey buddy, if you want to set up a cage match between you and a chimp, I'll put up against whatever you want to bet on yourself.
>warfare is a series of cage matches, best out of 5 wins
ok moron
>"Yeah man I'll FRICK a chimp up!"
>"ok bro just show us in a cage fight, go on"
>"WHOA WHOA WHOA wait uh you guys are moronic, I meant like, if I had a gun while shooting from within a jeep or something"
who are you quoting, moron? is this your first day on Ganker?
>who are you quoting, moron?
An anon too scared to get in the cage
read the chain before samegayging lmao newbie
I guesses right, I take it.
You weirdos are so easy to discern.
You seriously don't know what greentext is for?
Jesus Christ... Let me guess, you came from (and to the content from, coincidentally) 9gag, right?
You probably don't switch backgrounds in Teams too, aaaight?
>guess who gets fricked up when push comes to shove
The one with the gun.
That's because humans used weapons while chimps do not. What do you think happens when you face a chimp that's just as well armed and trained as you are?
I’d still frick it up
And you'd be dead in return.
Not saying I’d leave without a scratch, but you put me and a chimp in a cage, I’m the only motherfricker walking out that b***h
>short reach
>can’t attack over groin high barriers
what happens is it dies
>dig under it
Simple, become better armed and better trained than the chimp.
Right, so we agree that raw size and strength isn't everything. A chimpanzee could physically dominate a human in many ways but that doesn't mean they are objective superior to a person. Dwarves being smaller than other races doesn't mean they would be inevitably subjugated by the tallfolk.
They aren’t even smaller, just shorter. Despite the crippling insecurities & personal complexes inculcated in many here, height is not always an advantageous quality & is not representative of general brawniness in the slightest.
I think a dwarf would frick up a chimpanzee, but that's just me
For me it's the Blacklocks.
tell me anon, why do you want to physically dominate shorter races known for beards and manliness?
>I just don't understand how Dwarves as a people could exist in a pre-blackpowder setting and not get enslaved by a larger race.
Because fantasy authors don't care about realism.
Dwarves are too short and stub-legged to be competent fighters. They're not notably stronger than humans/elves/whatever either.
The only cope is that they'd be better suited for tunnel warfare, which is true until you remember that humans have been capable of using chemical warfare since the bronze age, and we have records of people getting gassed out of mines from the same period.
>Dwarves are too short and stub-legged to be competent fighters. They're not notably stronger than humans/elves/whatever either
I mean I could just make up random bullshit to suit my argument too if you want
These are just the facts. Nothing random or bullshit, like pretending Dwarfs are actually just chimpanzees or some equally moronic non-argument.
You know what's up.
>I just don't understand how Dwarves as a people could exist in a pre-blackpowder setting and not get enslaved by a larger race.
here you go, hope that helps you out, autismo.
I just don't get how tigers don't just eat all the humans. They're so much bigger and stronger.
>live in one of the most easily defendable areas possible
>are often portrayed as being more technologically advanced than most other races
>no one gives a shit about the, because they’re gay manlets
One of the reasons why I say Dwarves are one of the few races that out Stamina Humans. Real world historic facts can be left outside fantasy's doorstep, thanks.
Dwarves trundle around all day in fricking full heavy plate carrying over sized weapons. Or smithing and mining in sweltering heat nonstop for literally weeks to years depending on fiction. They are not only stronger but last longer than humans, and can beat the tar out of them, or elves or anyone that gets close.
As such, avoiding them completely becomes one of the best tactics, which most taller races can do. Dwarves are unable to traverse distances effectively thus they build up or down but don't travel far from their own lands and everyone else lets them keep to themselves.
... And that's pretty much as per normal for generic fantasy.
Some ideas:
>Kerkonian dwarves of the Blue Mountains
>Built and maintain a road and waystations through the mountains
>Allow easy travel across the otherwise impassable range
>Only passage for hundreds of miles
>Vital trade route between east and west sides of the mountains
>Kerkonians charge tolls on all merchants passing through
>Are making a killing
>Have convinced the human lords in the foothills at either end of their road to swear fealty
>In return for a share of the profits
>Both ends of the road are now defended by fortresses of dwarven make
>Manned by human lords and their subjects
>Dredel dwarves
>Threatened with war by Orc warlord Gallagar
>Offered fealty to Gallagar to avoid enslavement
>Gallagar wanted arms and armour of dwarven make
>Deal was sealed
>Became Gallagar's most treasured and trusted vassal
>Supplying his forces with masterful craftship
>While Gallagar keeps them supplied with slaves from his conquests, to support their industry
>Dwarves enjoy privileged status in Gallagar's empire
>The law of Gallagar says: "Any Orc who raises a hand against a Dwarf, that Orc dies"
>Gallagar's envoys regularly deliver the skulls of those so executed to Dredel as proof
>Dredel nobility find the practise rather ghoulish, though they appreciate the gesture
>Irrinell dwarves
>Hate nearby humans, who frequently raid their outlying settlements in the foothills
>One day elves from Mara arrive
>The elves were displaced from their ancient forests in Mara by invading humans
>Are searching for a new home
>King of Irrinell feels kinship with the elves, as they hate humans too
>He sets aside old grievances, gives the elves freedom to settle in the foothills
>As thanks, Maran elves teach the dwarves many of the secrets of their crafts
>Irinell is all the stronger for welcoming the strangers in
>It is common now, to see "Irinelli" elves fighting side-by-side with dwarves
>United by their hatred of humans
Damn, you should really learn to keep your dumb ideas to yourself
who pissed in your cheerios anon?
Frick off zoomie.
>dwarves and elves fighting side by side
NEVER
i am a Dwarf radical, i think dwarves would not actually use fancy Plate armour at all, or chain etc. as a race of master smiths, they'd keep that shit for display or ostentation, ceremonial etc. for actual fighting i think they'd ALWAYS be using Brigantine. because almost all dwarves have SOME smithing ability, and they would now that Brig is easy to maintain and repair, whilst, well, if you got your breastplate or cuirass cracked by a blow, now you gotta spend three fricking week re forging the fricking thing.
whereas with brig, you just make some new plates, quick and easy, and patch in new mounting fabrics etc front and back.
plus it lets dwarves do their 'disciplined warfare' thing against the greenskins and so on, because units of dwarvess will all have VERY brightly coloured UNIFORM brig. so Grungi's Quarrellers on the right flank might be all in Yellow and blue, whilst the Dwarven cavalry in reserve on their boars, well they're all wearing white and red that shines in the sun gloriously. lets the dwarven general sitting upon his command throne in the rear overseeing the battle see clearly how the battle is developing and when to commit the reserves and where.
dwarves should be landsknechts, except instead of stupid swords, they have polearms. and heavy crossbows.
with fancy bright coloured brig in uniforms.
no. you comprehensively fail to understand just how little whatever strength you think you have would faze a chimp, internet tough guy.
you are moronic.
by that logic all Asian countries should have been slaves to everyone else for most of history.
UH OH
Ever hear of David and Goliath?
>what is "the history of china" for 500 alex?
The Opium Wars happened after gunpowder man. Before that the only people who conquered China were other Asian peoples.
> I said all Asian countries, but I don't mean Asian countries by that - it's about all Asia being a slave of Moon people or something, because whole continent being a slave, uhhhhhhhhhhh, ummmmmmmmmm, pudding!
That'd be "moving the goalpost", pidor.
all asians are short, OPs logic was that short people are destined to be enslaved by not short people. Explain how the frick thats moving the goalpost?
> All Asia
> short
> Thailand 170.3 cm (5 ft 7 in) 159 cm (5 ft 2+1⁄2 in)
> Turkey 171.4 cm (5 ft 7+1⁄2 in) 157.7 cm (5 ft 2 in)
> Armenia 171.5 cm (5 ft 7+1⁄2 in) 159.2 cm (5 ft 2+1⁄2 in)
> United States 175.3 cm (5 ft 9 in) 161.3 cm (5 ft 3+1⁄2 in)
What kind of an inbred abomination unto God are you?
5'7 is fricking short bro. I mean so is 5'9 but still it's not as egregious as 5'7
> Uhhhhhhhhhh, it seems some Asian countries aren't composed of dwarves similar to myself, but oooooooh, look, there's Kevin Sorbo! I forgot what the thread, and my claim, are about, who are you people and where's my horse?
Seriously?
You're projecting so hard RN bro, I'm 6' even, not tall by any particular standards but not too short either.
> Oh thank you for throwing a bone at me so I can make it about something different than my lack of knowledge, imprecision and general homosexualtery.
Yoo welkum. Now bend over.
No, 6’ is taller than average for a man literally everywhere in the world except the Dinaric Alps & MonteBlack you absolute irredeemable moron.
5’9” is above average for planet earth humans you perfect simpleton.
>t. Manlet
Not only that unlike Asians, dwarves would be physically stronger than the people taller than them
MORON
moron
FATTY
Cappadocia, you friggin' triple Black person.
I thought this would be an interesting thread but it's just a guy shitposting.
I am right outside your house you pussy come out
bro chimps will rip a persons fricking face off with their bare hands
And I’d rip that fricking chimps heart out with my bare hands. Ain’t no way I’m losing to a fricking chimp. I’d frick that chimp up.
Fight me, chimp.
FRICKING FIGHT ME, YOU FRICKING CHIMP!
They live in extremely harsh and foreboding environments that are not suitable, or exactly desired by most races. Further, while short, they're often depicted as excessively broad so it's a great frame to pack muscle on.
With those in mind, it seems it would always be more profitable to trade with them, rather than go through the trouble of enslaving them.
Nope. Weight is a far greater advantage than height in close combat, dwarves are similarly weighted to taller races & far more robust at the same weight due to proportions & muscle/bone density.
The reach of one’s arm is not as important as the reach of one’s weapon, also. A dwarf with a spear still outreaches a man with a sword…
This is just a very poorly thought out question honestly. You could do a brief breakdown of relative advantages of two similarly weighted humanoids of man & dwarf height and see for yourself that it balances out fairly well.
Dwarves aren’t halflings, and even if they were there would be many, many, many military advantages to small, nimble soldiers if certain tactics were employed. I can list some if you like.
Why? Reach? You honestly think one disadvantage (mitigated or even eliminated by literally any weapon) is enough to ruin a people?
This isn’t MMA, where everybody is uniformly trained to fight at their maximum reach & there’s plenty of space to back up if someone gets inside it, and there aren’t any ways to supplement that reach.
moron.
I love dorfs so much bros
>who will always be physically dominated by the taller races
Anon, they're like 4'8 on average and just as strong and stout as a human if not more so on average with similar reach.
barring any changes in game since 05 I can technically play as a 5' 90lbs 20 year old and call her a dwarf right?
that gets me thinking.... Which rpg has the talles possible dwarfs or do all games agree on some unspoken agreement that non may surpass 150cm aka a human pygmee.
Go back to d
Dwarves being far stronger than regular humans is common in fiction but why are they also consistently slower and less mobile?
Here’s a hint: Dwarf wiener
>They're literal manlets, who will always be physically dominated by the taller races.
Why? Dwarves have the same strength score as humans.
Who the frick wants to go into claustrophobic cave networks to try and pull out a race of small people into slavery who are stubborn enough that they will make you kill them before they obey you?
You are moronic.
>Live in mountains
>Extremely fortified
>Insular
>Great craftsmen
>Self-sufficient cave dwellers
You wanna figure out logistics on fighting a cave war in the mountains against a foe who can simply bar the gates and not run out of food?
You are going to have to storm a fortified cave complex and fight while crawling just to drag some dwarves with a mind to fight to the death into slavery.
All this, against a people with capable industry which could foster profitable trade. People who won't compete with you for resources or trade routes as they prefer being landlocked.
Yea, sure, go ahead. Try to enslave them.
from a geopolitical standpoint
you want these little skittles on all of your borders as friends
no ones gonna get through that
That's why they hide underground.
They THRIVE underground
That's how they are coping.
Where’s the beard?
lower
>lower
eyyyyy
heyo
they're super built for their height, have top tier metallurgy, and like extensive underground fortifications
Their biggest weakness is that they can't run as fast, which means they can't escape from a superior foe or rout a defeated foe. To make up for this they would need to make extensive use of cavalry, though they are rarely depicted as doing so.
Extra leverage and reach from height gives an advantage in individual fights, but when fighting in formation that advantage mostly disappears
>muh strength matters less because armor and weapons
I know /tg/ is the exact board I should expect this from, but most of you are absolute morons. Strength is fricking vital when you're fighting in armor, shit routinely gets to wrestling range, and if you cross with someone who can overpower you in armor, you're in serious fricking trouble.
And seriously
>Reach not being fricking vital
Yeah, fighting a guy who's 6" taller than me fricking sucks, he can see, and hit places on me I can't hit on him from the same distance, for exactly no downside.
Inb4 some moron talks about making low attacks. People can crouch, and defending legs is fricking easy.
You are the moron. Fighting in a battle, with weapons, in disciplined formation is nothing like a 1 on 1 bare-hands cage fight. And even if it was there are different skills that you can use to overpower raw strength/size. Which you would know if you were, say, 185 and training martial arts with a manlet buddy very fond of hip throws and joint locks. But you are just a keyboard warrior.
>Fighting in a battle, with weapons, in disciplined formation is nothing like a 1 on 1 bare-hands cage fight
>I was wrestling in armor two weeks ago
You clearly failed your Reading Comprehension roll there, buddy.
>don't work on people in armor
Yes, the only armor world has ever seen was the late-period full plate harness. And the only combat vehicle ever is the Abrams tank.
>sooner, rather than later, you're wrestling with daggers anyway.
Yes, the Roman legions conquered the known world due to their superior swole and dagger-wrestling skills. Nothinh to do with equipment, training or discipline. Just raw manlinese and oiled pecs.
I mean, for how long do you intend to continue embarrassing yourself? I know that being anonymous helps but this is just sad.
>Muh legions
The legions that did regular PT and which drew from well fed rural recruits, then ensured they had a constant supply of food, and then proceeded to conquer physically inferior people who didn't do PT? Yes,being stronger than their opponents was a serious factor.
Go read period sources describing legionaries in combat. You don't knock people down with your shield without being strong.
Legionaries were short little italians though, they were in awe of the great size of the celts and germans when they faced them in combat
Then they killed them all the same
Modern scholarship towers that whole notion apart. Romans were far better fed, with the sources talking about the big, manly celts actually just looking to b***h about whatever thing they felt was making Rome soft. Celtic and Germanic agriculture was far less advanced, with famines far more common. We actually have a speech from Caesar in which he shits on the Germans for being badly built, and EVERY account of combat had the Romans physically bullying their combat. Be it in a line or a single combat, they relied very heavily on battering their opponents with their shield, knocking him off balance, breaking his guard, controlling his arms, or even knocking him off his feet. This just doesn't work if you're a weak manlet compared to the guy you're fighting.
strong manlets, skilled in construction... almost like... dwarves.
>Manlets
But they weren't. That's the point.
what proof have you?
No you can't defend legs easy idiot
Yes, you can. It's incredibly easy. Move your leg. That's it, that's all. If you can't, hold your shield out further to reduce the angles your opponent has. If THAT isn't possible, threaten his face every time he tries for your legs, because you'll get there first every time. There's a reason a lot of fully armored men didn't bother with sabatons, and why 3/4 armor omits greaves but keeps everything else.
I was wrestling in armor two weeks ago, moron. The bigger, stronger man has a huge advantage unless he's completely unskilled against a trained opponent, which is unlikely. Physical advantages don't just go away once you have skills.
>Muh joint locks
Yeah some of those don't work on people in armor. Any attempt to dislocate knees or use an arm bar on a guy with articulated limbs, for example, is guaranteed to fail- the armor won't let the joints move that way unless you're strong enough to break the steel.
>Muh formation
Guess what happens when weapons cross and you're packed in tight? Stronger opponent has a huge advantage unless he sucks or is lighter armed. And sooner, rather than later, you're wrestling with daggers anyway.
i do not care if my hips are broken in the process, or if i am enslaved to be mines forever - i need to breed a cute dwarf lass. NEED, not a WANT.
you just wanna frick a dwarf
Who doesn’t!