Solider vs. Barbarian

[Sword-dancer]

Probably because Conan wades through scores of soldiers in the stories. In most of the stories, Howard emphasizes the superiority of barbarians over civilised men, esp. soldiers.

I think not.

If I take the other stories of REH which I know together this isn`t the truth.

If I take for example Solomon Kane vs Conan, the Cimmerian is IMPOV at a serious disadvantage, or his Outremer Stories, a Frankish knight(Noble - Soldier) met an Officer of the Varangian Guard(Barbarian?) the Barbarian fights and dies.

Took Balbus in Volves beyond the Border he and the dog, they took alone a good number Of Picts with them.

Thereason Conan isso deadly isn`t he isa Barbariam it is because he is an extraordinary Barbarian.

 

[VincentDarlage]

I think not.

If I take the other stories of REH which I know together this isn`t the truth.

I am not referring to other stories of REH. I was referring solely to the Conan stories by REH. I also said, "in MOST of the stories." That implies exceptions to the vague "rule" I was proffering, which might be taken to mean that I also can think of exceptions. However, it was not conducive to my argument to mention the exceptions I know of.

Can you argue that Howard never once put forth the idea that barbarism was superior to civilisation in any Conan story? That would prove your "I think not" point better than you have done here.

If I take for example Solomon Kane vs Conan, the Cimmerian is IMPOV at a serious disadvantage, or

Howard never wrote a Solomon Kane vs Conan story. I definitely was not referring to stories REH did not write, nor to some sort of imaginary "who would win if so-and-so fought so-and-so" situation.

his Outremer Stories, a Frankish knight(Noble - Soldier) met an Officer of the Varangian Guard(Barbarian?) the Barbarian fights and dies.

I also was not referring to his Outremer stories; I was referring to REH-authored Conan tales. Just because Howard explored other themes than the one I mentioned does not invalidate the idea that he did possibly explore the "barbarism is stronger than civilisation" theme in addition to those others.

Can you argue that Howard never once put forth the idea that barbarism was superior to civilisation in any actual REH-written Conan story? That would prove your "I think not" point better than you have done here. All you have done is shown that he wrote on a variety of themes, a point I have no contention with.

Took Balbus (sic) in Volves (sic) beyond the Border he and the dog, they took alone a good number Of Picts with them.

1) The story is Beyond the Black River.
2) Balthus was not a soldier. He was a borderer. He does not appear to be linked to any sort of military unit in that story.

Thereason (sic) Conan isso deadly isn`t he isa Barbariam (sic) it is because he is an extraordinary Barbarian.

My point was that Conan wades through hordes of soldiers in many of the stories. So do the Picts. Aquilonian soldiers were repelled by barbaric Cimmerians. If it were not for Conan and Balthus, the Picts would have had a definitive win in the referenced story above (of course, they did succeed at driving the people out of Conajohara). The whole of the Hyborian civilisation will be swept away by Picts, Nordheimir and Hyrkanians. Of course there are exceptions and exceptional soldiers. I am not referring to them. The rules support that situation as well.

True, Conan also wades through hordes of barbarians, but that is also not my argument here. Conan did a lot of things I did not mention. Mentioning that he once ate some beef in a story does not aid my point, so I did not mention it.

Can you argue that Howard never once put forth the idea that barbarism was superior to civilisation in any Conan story? That would prove your "I think not" point better than you have done here.

 

[Sword-dancer]

Can you argue that Howard never once put forth the idea that barbarism was superior to civilisation in any Conan story? That would prove your "I think not" point better than you have done here.
.

No but maybe also the contrary.
Yes It could be meant in Beyond the Black River,
The Moment that Balbus learns that the Cimmerian was only concerned with the naked fundamentals of life, The warm initmacies civilced men cherished so much were meaningless to him.

Howard never wrote a Solomon Kane vs Conan story.

That`s what I don`t meant, I meant that I envisioned Solomon Kane as a much more dangerous and deadlier fighter.

I also was not referring to his Outremer stories; I was referring to REH-authored Conan tales.

I´ve had envisioned Howards writings as fare as konown to me.
The main theme in the Conan Stories is a man who has the valour and the will to fight against the Inhuman Beings from the "outer Void" between the Stars.
He wouldn`t back down, wouldn`t surrender,maybe going down, but going down fighting, never succumb on his knees.

Can you argue that Howard never once put forth the idea that barbarism was superior to civilisation in any actual REH-written Conan story? That would prove your "I think not" point better than you have done here. All you have done is shown that he wrote on a variety of themes, a point I have no contention with.

Took Balbus (sic) in Volves (sic) beyond the Border he and the dog, they took alone a good number Of Picts with them.

1) The story is Beyond the Black River.
2) Balthus was not a soldier. He was a borderer. He does not appear to be linked to any sort of military unit in that story

.
1 Yes I got the Title Wrong
2 Balthus was a civilzed man, but he brought the Valour, the will, to fight against the Picts, he died, but he died sacrificing his life for others, so that they could life.
And taking with him at least a half dozen Picts.
And these will isn`t in Howards Stories something the Barbarians had a lone right on.
The 5000 Aquilonians who preferred to fight and died beside their king, instead of fleeing, at the Battle of Shamu`s Plain.
The stubborn Defense of the Citicens of Shamar, against the forces of Ophir and Koth 1500 men against 40.000 and Tsotha, with no Hope of reinforcement, they hold this city until Conan attacked them 10.900 man.
Scarlet Citadel

So do the Picts.

Which stories?

The whole of the Hyborian civilisation will be swept away by Picts, Nordheimir and Hyrkanians.

But first the Aquilonian Kings opened the way for the Picts by crushing the Bossonians.

True, Conan also wades through hordes of barbarians, but that is also not my argument here.

Yes and that meant Conan was exceptional Warrior,not that a barbarian is at Standard at an advantage against an civilced man.

 

[VincentDarlage]

Balthus was a civilzed man, but he brought the Valour, the will, to fight against the Picts, he died, but he died sacrificing his life for others, so that they could life.
And taking with him at least a half dozen Picts.
And these will isn`t in Howards Stories something the Barbarians had a lone right on.
The 5000 Aquilonians who preferred to fight and died beside their king, instead of fleeing, at the Battle of Shamu`s Plain.
The stubborn Defense of the Citicens of Shamar, against the forces of Ophir and Koth 1500 men against 40.000 and Tsotha, with no Hope of reinforcement, they hold this city until Conan attacked them 10.900 man.

What does any of that have to do with my original point?

1) I never claimed others could not be valorous or willful.
2) I never claimed barbarians were the only ones who could be valorous or willful in the stories.
3) I never claimed civilised men could not be stubborn or fight the good fight.

I claimed Conan could wade through hordes of soldiers. That one of the MANY themes is that barbarians are, in many ways, superior. The game is meant to emulate that. Period.

Proof that this is one of many themes?

The God in the Bowl: "Have you ever seen a Cimmerian scale a sheer cliff?" Note that this is not about Conan being skilled. The Cimmerians as a barbarian race are known even in Nemedia to be superior climbers.

The Tower of the Elephant: "The Cimmerian, with the unerring instinct of the barbarian, had killed his man in the darkness and confusion." Again, Conan is not put forward as a fantastic example, simply that he possesses what all barbarians possess - and it is made to be an ability superior to those who are civilised.

Of course, there is the tired, much over-used quote from "Beyond the Black River": "Barbarism is the natural state of mankind,' the borderer said, still staring somberly at the Cimmerian. 'Civilisation is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must ultimately triumph.'"

In so many of the stories, the explanation often given is not that Conan himself was so exceptional, but that he had a certain ability BECAUSE he was a barbarian. (of course there are exceptions to that too. Conan was described as exceptional at times as well.) Hence, because Conan was a barbarian, he had certain advantages over civilised men. Thus the game gives barbarians certain advantages. It is not an even playing field. (and in some situations, the other classes have the upper hand. Again, there is no across-the-board even playing field. Nobles have their arenas, barbarians have theirs. Even soldiers have theirs - esp. in large, organised numbers.)

And barbarism does triumph, actually. In the Hyborian Age essay by Howard, the Picts, the Nordheimir and the Hyrkanians overrun everything.

Earlier in the history, the barbaric Hyborians bring down the civilised Acheronians.

Still earlier, the Lemurians, barbaric slaves, rose up and destroyed their masters.

Howard's stories are replete with barbarians rising up and destroying civilisation. Example after example after example can be found. That is all I was saying. Is that end-all? No. Did I leave out some stuff? Yes.

I am not sure what you are arguing or what exactly you are disagreeing with. Can you show that Howard NEVER postulated that barbarians have advantages over civilised men in certain situations? All I am saying is that he does, in some Conan stories, emphasize barbarian superiority and that the game reflects that well.

 

[Sword-dancer]

I believe we posted not really at another.

I don`t think, that a barbarian in Howards writings is automatically superior to an civilced conterpart.
What counts is in what Arena the game is played, and how strong the conterparts in these Arenas are.

The fight against the Acheronians etc I considered more in Line, Man of Valour against the darkness, then against Barbarians against civilization.

 

[VincentDarlage]

Howard never wrote a Solomon Kane vs Conan story.

That`s what I don`t meant, I meant that I envisioned Solomon Kane as a much more dangerous and deadlier fighter.

Then I do not understand why you mentioned Solomon Kane at all. I said, "Probably because Conan wades through scores of soldiers in the stories. In most of the stories, Howard emphasizes the superiority of barbarians over civilised men, esp. soldiers." You then replied that If I take for example Solomon Kane vs Conan, the Cimmerian is IMPOV at a serious disadvantage.

How did you manage to get that I was impuning Solomon Kane from my statement? Somehow I doubt Solomon Kane is a Hyborian age soldier.

Just for future clarity, when I mentioned that Conan often wades through scores of soldiers in the Conan tales, I did not mean Solomon Kane. Nor did I mean a company of modern soldiers with modern equipment. Nor did I mean Batman or James Bond. I did not intend to disparage the GI Joe team either. I am not impuning anyone's ability to fight Conan EXCEPT Hyborian Age soldiers; they tend to die in great quantities when Conan is fighting them. Not always, mind you, but the tendency is there.

No disrespect was intended toward Solomon Kane. I did not mean for him to be lumped in with Hyborian age soldiers.

 

[Sword-dancer]

Then I do not understand why you mentioned Solomon Kane at all. I said, "Probably because Conan wades through scores of soldiers in the stories. In most of the stories, Howard emphasizes the superiority of barbarians over civilised men, esp. soldiers." .

Because you didn`t mentioned that you meant with most of the stories from Robert E Howard, in this case only the Stories of Conan.
Second because neither from his Kull, quite the contrary, stories nor from his Bran Mak Morn stories(who are written in the "same" "Cthulhu"verse) i get this Picture.
Or from other Stories Robert E Howard wrote.

I am not impuning anyone's ability to fight Conan EXCEPT Hyborian Age soldiers; they tend to die in great quantities when Conan is fighting them.

The difference to picts is, except that picts had the tendencie to die in Numbers if fighting against civized enemies?

Not always, mind you, but the tendency is there.

No disrespect was intended toward Solomon Kane. I did not mean for him to be lumped in with Hyborian age soldiers

If I would have to translate Solomon Kane as an Soldier/Borderer.

REHs Stories in the hyborian Age focuses on Conan, Conan is an exceptional warrior if under "Soldiers" or under Barbarians,I don`t remember an Story where the best of the civilced Warriors and the best of barbarian(Nordheimer,Cimmerians) met under equal circumstances.

 

[VincentDarlage]

The difference to picts is, except that picts had the tendencie to die in Numbers if fighting against civized enemies?

Right. If the soldiers went out to the Picts, soldiers die. If the Picts go to the soldiers in their forts, Picts die. The strength of soldiers lies in superior technology and organisation.

I would argue that most American Indians at their height were superior to Americans at the same time period in many ways. Put a 10 year old civilised person out in the wilderness alone and a 10 year old American Indian out there, who has the greater chance of survival? There are exceptions though. Plenty of American soldiers had reputations as Indian fighters. That was something to boast about because everyone understood Indians were not easy to fight. I would hesitate to challenge any Aquilonian who was known to be a Cimmerian Killer; that will likely be one tough guy - or one tough army unit.

There are always exceptions. The rules support this. Barbarian PCs will have an advantage over soldiers. However - Picts will probably die in great numbers against an organised group of PC soldiers, despite the fact that the Picts are these supposedly superior barbarians. Notice how that emulates the Conan stories so well.

 

[Sword-dancer]

If the Picts go to the soldiers in their forts, Picts die. The strength of soldiers lies in superior technology and organisation. .

And if the Picts goes under favorable conditions against one Bordere at least half a dozen picts die, for one young borderer, and when they met with civiliced warriors on the open field, they get butchered.
If they play their woodwarrior trade against the Borderers of Aquilonia it`s an even trade, at best.
Sometimes they ambushed them and sometimes a shaman died through an arrow and 50 picts weren`t able to get him.

Put a 10 year old civilised person out in the wilderness alone and a 10 year old American Indian out there, who has the greater chance of survival?

The Indian, but who hads the better chances in an civilced place?

Picts will probably die in great numbers against an organised group of PC soldiers, despite the fact that the Picts are these supposedly superior barbarians.

One Borderer killed 7 Picts in Close Combat,not counting those he killed but were not counted.
Gault slipped through the pictian woods, shoot an shaman and escaped the pictish hunt and killed one or three picts in doing so.

The nemdeian border veterans were also warriors with good instincts for battle.

 

[Foxworthy]

Just for future clarity, when I mentioned that Conan often wades through scores of soldiers in the Conan tales, I did not mean Solomon Kane. Nor did I mean a company of modern soldiers with modern equipment. Nor did I mean Batman or James Bond. I did not intend to disparage the GI Joe team either. I am not impuning anyone's ability to fight Conan EXCEPT Hyborian Age soldiers; they tend to die in great quantities when Conan is fighting them. Not always, mind you, but the tendency is there.

Comic Book GI Joes or Cartoon GI Joes? Cause Conan would so own the cartoon team.

 

[argo]

One Borderer killed 7 Picts in Close Combat,not counting those he killed but were not counted.

Ok, you keep bringing up Balthus but you are forgeting that, by the rules of the Conan RPG, he was at least a 15th level Borderer! :shock: The Heroic Sacrifice ability was clearly designed specifically to represent that scene. Also the Borderer class is clearly not meant to be the shinning representitive of civilization in the Conan RPG. Nobles and Soldiers (and arguably Scholars) are the "civilized classes". Borderer's occupy a gray area, they protect civilization and do jobs for civilization but they are out there in the woods because they can't stomach civilization themselves. They are the "monutain man" archtype, the hunter/trapper who "went native". The borderer characters in REH's stories (including Balthus) fell into this archtype and the Borderer class in the game upholds it.

Look, if you remember the start of this thread you know I am of the opinion that the Barbarian and Soldier are mechanically balanced. But they are mechanically ballanced for their home turf. A barbarian in a survival situation in the wilderness and with little equipment will whup a soldier and a soldier as part of a unit, with good equipment supplied by his government, will probably defeat an equal sized horde of poorly equiped and badly organized barbarians. Arguing that the "civilized" classes can go toe to toe with the "barbaric" classes on the barbarian's home field is not supported either by the rules or the REH source material.

And it is also foolish to argue that one of the reoccuring themes REH worked into his Conan yarns was not that barbarism is inherently stronger than civilization. It was one of the ideas he played with over and over again and might even be said to be central to the Conan character and the Hyborian age. Though it is also worth noting that Howard set it up so that barbarism doesn't wipe out civilization until civilization becomes corrupt and decedant or some other quirk of fate occurs; such as the Picts mastering steel at just the same time that Aquilonia foolishly betrays the Bossonians and Gundermen and leaves her back exposed to Pict invasion.

Later.

 

[Sword-dancer]

Ok, you keep bringing up Balthus but you are forgeting that, by the rules of the Conan RPG, he was at least a 15th level Borderer! :shock:

Ups, I never envisioned him in the Novel as nearly so experienced.

A barbarian in a survival situation in the wilderness and with little equipment will whup a soldier

Yes, and I never wanted to say something else.
I wanted to say, that in a situation which is neither beneficial to one of them, a Barbarian or a Soldier(civilced fighter) of Quality meet each others, the Soldier/civilced fighter isn`t doom to lose.

And it is also foolish to argue that one of the reoccuring themes REH worked into his Conan yarns was not that barbarism is inherently stronger than civilization.

The true advantage of most "Barbarians" is, that in REHs World like most "S&S" Worlds "Weakness" isn`t something to be forgiven, and weakness is more likely to be nurished in civilization.

 

[René]

Solomon Kane is a barbarian, too! REH said it himself:

Solomon Kane (delrey-ed.) p.320:

Kane stood ? an unconscious statue of triumph ? the ancient empires fall, the dark-skinned peoples fade and even the demons of antiqutiy gasp their last, but over all stands the Aryan barbarian, white-skinned, cold-eyed, dominant, the supreme figthing man of the earth, whether he be clad in wolf-skin and horned helmet, or boots and doublet ? whether he bear in his hand battle-ax or rapier ? whether he be called Dorian, Saxon or Englishman ? whether his name be Jason, Hengist or Solomon Kane.

So maybe, all this debate, which I didn't understand to the last detail, isn't that terrible essential - no offense to anyone meant...

Besides, this is a wonderful sentence of REH - epic and powerful ( if you can live with the implied political incorrectness)!

 

[VincentDarlage]

And this provides yet further proof that Howard rather thought barbarians to have an advantage...

Yeah, I can see S. Kane as a barbarian. It is more of an attitude than a lifestyle.

 

[Sword-dancer]

This attitude is right.

 

[geordiekimbo]

I'm currently playing a Shemite Soldier who is level 9 (just levelled). In the group I adventure with is an 8th level Barbarian who is about to level and the player has mentioned many times that he'd never want to be on the receiving end of damage from my character.

At 9th level the character currently has +16/+11 or +14/+14/+9 with a Shemite bow (+1 to hit within 30') which when used by him has a threat range of 19-20. He's pretty handy in hand to hand too, but the player of the Barbarian knows that if it ever came down to a fight between the pir of them that the soldier would tactically fight to his own advantage and so would use his bow to pick him off before he could get close to doing anything about it.

I think the two classes are quite well balanced. My character's list of Feats is getting impressive (My own gripes aside from what to chose from aside for another day).

I've always thought its nothing to do with what abilities you have, its how you play the character. In that campaign my Shemite scares people. I may post up his character sheet one day if people are interested.

+Edited for a mistake in attack bonuses+

 

[Belkregos]

bump

 

[geordiekimbo]

I posted my character here...

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=143084#143084

 

[Mark Dunder]

Soldiers are members of an army. If you are not in the army, than you are not a soldier. If you go out adventuring and you are in some countries army, then you are a deserter, unless you are on furlough. Perhaps you have had training in some army, and were once a soldier. But that is for background on your character, and not perhaps your current occupation. As such, Soldiers may make good NPCs, but perhaps a more descriptive Class like Warrior, Mercenary, or even Fighter, might be more of a PCs class. A Knight Class might work, as they did not always fit into a slot. Knights were very mercenarious, and some went about helping rescue maidens from hot headed dragons.

Soldiers had discipline, and could be counted on to do whatever the commanding officer told them to do. A soldiers life was usually a sentence of death for ancient cultures of the past. In Roman times, the families often would have a wake for the departing soldier, as they would probably never see them again.

Conan was a barbarian, but not by choice. The conditions of his northern country forced the Cimmerians to be as tough as nails. Conan played the soldier in several civilized nations, but it never really clicked for him. I don't think the disciplined life was meant for him. He was more than likely to kill the officer that tried to make him do something stupid. A soldier, on the other hand would die trying to do what the officer told him to do, and that's discipline. That's a Soldier.

 

[Banite]

I don't know, I find 'soldier' is a good term to signify the differance between that class and barbarian at the least. A soldier relies on training, and forced discipline to augment his natural skill at arms, while a barbarian is more likely to plow forward towards his enemies relying on ferocious instinct rather than any formal training.

I mean, both are warriors really, both fight, so soldier seems as appropriate a term as any other.

Personally, I enjoy both classes alot more than the old 3e barbarian and fighter classes - I think the conan book managed to capture the 'feeling' of savage warrior far better than any book before it, within any game system I've played or seen to date.