Why is it a bad idea to give a centaur a lance and have them

>>47236118
The humanoid spine of the upper centaur torso is not nearly strong enough to support a lance being thrust forward at the speed of a horse. Imagine a horse rider charging a wall with a lance. Upon impact, the kinetic force will travel through the lance and into the body of the wielder. For a normal rider, this will mean getting punched off the saddle of the horse. For a centaur, that will mean snapping the spine at the front hip, likely killing them or paralyzing them. A centaur is much more suited to archery for these reasons.

>any king of animal
>beatman type monster

File: 1463143388169.jpg (554KB, 1115x973px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 1115x973px

>>47236213
>hunting with a sword

>>47236212
This explains why jousting was never practiced in the real world.

>>47236244
That's not a typo though, you can with whatever as long as you run fast enough.

>>47236247
Jousting between centaurs certainly wasn't.

>>47236247
I mean, realistically a centaur's body and skeletal structure must be a lot tougher than you'd expect from a similarly-proportioned human because they need to hold that entire torso upright on top of what is usually just the neck of a horse, but it's probably not as effective a use of a centaur's talents compared to being a mounted archer.

>>47236302
maybe because centaurs doesn't real

>>47236375
They're real, they're just hiding.

>>47236247
Jousting was never practiced in the real world? what?..

>>47236388
tell them they can hide in my bed too then
>>47236400
>whats a sarcasm

>>47236400
Anon was being facetious.

>>47236313
I heard that centaurs would suck as archers too because of their bodies vs regular mounted archers.

>>47236247

>What is Anglo-Norman England?
>What is late medieval France?

>>47236439
Are you going to get upset and post about pretending to be retarded if someone tells you it was a joke?

>>47236118
>>47236212
Centaur spines are generally bullshit anyway. You can apply whatever elasticity you want to if you want centaur lancers.

>>47236435
Anon...centaurs ARE the bed. They're like a giant, sexable, self heating, couch sized, big tittied body pillow.

>>47236437
you guys think everyone sucks at archery because you fat neckbeards can't draw a bow without shitting yourselves

>>47236516
Large breasted centaurs a shit. Cowgirl fags need to stop appropriating proud warrior races

>>47236516
I'd prefer a deer sized one though

File: Consider the Following.png (666KB, 1126x845px)

666KB, 1126x845px

>>47236212
The lance would break first, not the spine. Worst case scenario, the centaur would be forced to drop the lance.

>>47236212
A centaur wouldn't be as good at horse archery, because it couldn't run and shoot at the same time. Groups of horses can keep running even if their riders are looking the other way, because they know how to run in a pack without stumbling over one another. They wouldn't necessarily suck, but they'd be less suited.

>>47236573
I disagree.

>>47236558
still.

>>47236565
And both are also valid reasons why the centaur should probably use anything other than a weapon meant for charging.

>>47236522
Calm down buddy.

>>47236212
First of all, the lance will likely fail before the spine does. Second, their physiology will be different to support the additional vertical weight.

>>47236573
This is true. The great advantage of horse archery, aside from the high-mobility far strike, is the ability to fire while retreating. This is called the Parthian shot.

>>47236573
It shouldn't be any more difficult than it is for a human to run and shoot. Certainly less accurate than standing and shooting, but still very doable with training (and still preferable to using a lance.

>>47236604
nah, she'd be way too small for that
>>47236612
I'm just saying this comes up literally every time in /tg/ threads "hurr hurr x sucks at archery because drawing bows is hhaaaard" no you neckbeards are just shit at it

>>47236573
The centaurs wouldn't be in a particularly tight formation; I'm sure that stumbling over eachother wouldn't be that big of a problem.

>>47236634
a horse body would hold be better at holding a posture than a human body too

>>47236573
That could simply be practice.

Honestly, I liked the idea of Horse Archers riding Centaur. Coordinated, they could do a hell of a lot of crazy shit.

The concept of Heavy Cav riders is great as well. Human riders provide the shock and awe of the charge impact, and then the rider and Centaur can both fight in the ensuring melee.

Really, if you had the rider trained to protect the Centaur's legs while the Centaur focused more on the fighting, I bet there'd be money to be made there as well.

>>47236650
....have you ever been up close to a deer? They could big spoon your entire outstretched body and still have room for their own head/big tittied torso to sit near yours.

>>47236631
Why wouldn't a centaur be able to shoot while retreating?

>>47236665
Come again?

>>47236212
So what if centaurs had two spines, kind of? One for the human half, one for the horse half. Probably some sort of major nerve node in the middle to connect the two.

>>47236672
>Using a cavalry in a sustained Melee
Yeah that's something you really don't want happening. You want to be able to crash through and loosen their formation, reform your own, and repeat till the enemy starts running away.

>>47236650
Nobody mentioned it was hard.

>>47236573
About all a centaur can do better than a human on a horse is traverse staircases, keep their cool in battle, and fuck virgins.

>>47236685
Horses can't into backwards. Well at least not above Unsure, Frightened, and Stressed out of the Unknown speeds of wary slow shuffle.

>>47236118

>I seem to remember something about their spines snapping like twigs.

are you wondering about the application of real world physics on the form of a fantasy world creature?

Why are you questioning that, and not evolution? what possible creature could centaurs evolve from?

File: Whitetail_doe.jpg (280KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 800x600px

>>47236680
doubt it
>>47236732
come on now this is literally what happens every time, girls suck at archery because drawing bows is hard, elves suck at archery because they're too weak to draw bow, holding a bow is too hard etc etc and then some neckbeard tells how he struggles drawing bows despite being the strongest motherfucker on earth and so on

>>47236729
Sure, normally, and that would be the goal anyways.

But if you go get bogged down(and you do, because shit always goes wrong in combat), then you're packing twice the combat power of regular heavy Cav.

Like, I could see you front loading the armor on the Centaur and then having the rider focused mainly on protecting the flanks of the Centaur, letting them be decently suited to grinding melees in addition to powerful charges.

>>47236650
Deers are still pretty fucking big dude.

>>47236605
Not really, no. Most light lances wire pretty flimsy things, and often didn't survive more than one cavalry charge, either because they snapped once they embedded themselves in their target, or they got stuck in the enemy's corpse.

This problem, however, was circumvented by going to battle with more than one lance.

>>47236788
Deer are big dude.

>>47236552
Fuck off pedo

>>47236757
Centaurs aren't horses though. They're jackasses who just happen to have the body of horses. In Greek mythology they're mean aggressive raiders drunkards and rapists who think they stand a chance against fucking Heracles.

>>47236818
>>47236824
The female (doe) in North America usually weighs from 40 to 90 kg (88 to 198 lb). White-tailed deer from the tropics and the Florida Keys are markedly smaller-bodied than temperate populations, averaging 35 to 50 kg (77 to 110 lb), with an occasional adult female as small as 25 kg (55 lb)

ok

>>47236788
>>47236818
>>47236824
>city folk thinking "deer" is a single type of animal

Mule deer, maybe. A lot of deer are pretty big.

So where are a centaur's organs located?
Does it have four pairs of lungs (this seems silly to me), two hearts (this seems useful for an animal that long, though still somewhat silly) and so on.

>>47236861
and a lot of deer are pretty small, what's your point

While a centaur archer couldn't do the Parthian shot as well, it'd probably make up for that by simply being faster and able to run for longer, since it wouldn't be carrying a rider.
>>47236634
Has anyone fielded infantry archers who were expected to run and fire at the same time?

>>47236866
I imagine the lungs would just be twice as large instead, and there'd be one heart in normal human place and another in the middle of the horse body

>>47236788
Where did the neckbeard archer touch you anon?

>>47236866
Two sets of vital organs. A centaur's body was created with redundancy such that nearly any single wound that could be fatal to another race would have relatively little effect on a centaur.

>>47236883
>and a lot of deer are pretty small, what's your point
That some deer are pretty small, and some deer are pretty big, and saying "all deer are X size" is retarded.

Please note that one of the three posts that were replied to, "Doubt it", was seemingly expressing doubt that a deer could spoon anon.

>>47236883
>>47236861
Most deer are large animals. The fact that some south american species nobody ever really think of as deer happen to be really small is just arguing in bad faith.

>>47236843
Doesn't matter. Backwards movement is a bastard with horse physiology just like dogs can't really move their wrists and must rely on spinal movement for turns. Not to mention the fact that backwards movement with horses is just asking for broken ankles from misplaced weight.

>>47236937
...that'd certainly make them a +2 CON race.

>>47236866
I'd imagine that a centaur's chest is filled almost entirely by its lungs, and that it's oversized heart is instead located in the horse's body.

This is probably also where most of the centaur's digestive organs are, which would likely be located surrounding the heart and acting as ablative tissue

Wow, you guys debate some pointless things sometimes

>>47237018
>sometimes

>>47236957
so one of america's most common deer species is "not a deer" because it doesn't fit your fantasies about them, ok then, also one of the most widespread deers in europe
does are 130–150 cm (51–59 in) long with a 75–85 cm (30–33 in) shoulder height, and 30–50 kg (66–110 lb) in weight.
but I bet those aren't "deers" either because they don't fit your arbitrary criterias

>>47236957

>Most deer are large animals.

For you.

Without a rider, couldn't heavy shock centaurs slap on another 20-30 kg of armour and still be lighter than regular heavy cavalry?
Wouldn't they'd lack the ability to aggressively protect their back half if they got bogged down in melee, while a human on a horse can turn around and attack in more directions more efficiently?

>>47236965
What are you even talking about now. Horse archers don't do parthian shots while their horses trot backwards. They do it by turning around and shooting while there horse runs away

>>47236957
"noone really think of as deers"
In the U.S., the species is the state animal of Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, the wildlife symbol of Wisconsin, and game animal of Oklahoma. The profile of a white-tailed deer buck caps the coat of arms of Vermont and can be seen in the flag of Vermont and in stained glass at the Vermont State House. It is the national animal of Honduras, and the provincial animal of Canadian Saskatchewan and Finnish Pirkanmaa. Texas is home to the most white-tailed deer of any U.S. state or Canadian province, with an estimated population of over four million. Notably high populations of white-tailed deer occur in the Edwards Plateau of Central Texas. Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Illinois, Wisconsin, Maryland, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Indiana also boast high deer densities. In 1884, one of the first hunts of white-tailed deer in Europe was conducted in Opočno and Dobříš (Brdy Mountains area), in what is now the Czech Republic.
>>47237059
he probably hasn't even seen deers in a zoo

How would a centaur settlement/fort even be structured? I imagine centaur bodies wouldn't lend themselves well to ladders, or even stairs

>>47237037
>criteria
You're the ones calling those small, not me, dipshit.

>>47236247
>For a normal rider, this will mean getting punched off the saddle of the horse.

>>47237075
Can centaurs spines bend like that? I'd imagine they'd have to tack like a sail boat which would severely hinder retreating.

... you can spoon with most medium-sized dogs.
If your definition of a small deer is "too small for you to be the little spoon" then most deer aren't small.

Depending on how you define successful spooning, and how large you are.

>>47237109
Tipis and Yurts. No walls. almost every member of your species can outrun almost anything that could ever attack you, even with half your possessions thrown on your back.

>>47237109
>How would a centaur settlement/fort even be structured
With ramps. Lots of ramps.

Or just palisades you can't really get on top of anyway.

>>47237109
They'd be terrible defending fortifications. Huge bodies to feed, no room for playing off their strengths, can't duck behind fortifications, can't cram as many of them up on the walls.

>>47237164
We were defining deer as deer by couchibility not spoonibilty. Better be big enough for her to be a couch and you the occupant or we're gonna deny her centaur status and send her to the butcher house. Don't want undesirables in the genepool and all.

>>47237138
Can your spine turn around?

>>47237124
sure then a 30kg deer would fling me around and snap my neck, that's what would happen

>>47237227
Only so much. And it hinders my ability to properly draw and aim.

>>47236858
>female (doe)
well there's your problem

>>47237269
you wanna fuck with a male centaur or what?

File: what-the-fuck-am-i-reading.jpg (64KB, 540x739px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 540x739px

>>47237218
>We were defining deer as deer by couchibility not spoonibilty

>>47237138
Why wouldn't they be able to? It the exact same thing human horse archers had to do. Your on a horse. A tiny change of trajectory while at full gallop isn't going to get you caught by anything.

Can you not look directly behind yourself just using your spine?

>>47237269
We don't take kindly to YOU people round these parts.

>>47237267
So how did mounted archers do it?

File: falsedilemma.jpg (4KB, 160x207px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 160x207px

>>47236838

>>47237267
You knock the arrow looking forward, draw as you turn around, find a target and loose.

This is not hard, Anon.

>>47237316
Dunno. I imagine they'd shift their hips and leg placement that centaurs don't have. Try sitting in a chair and firmly locking your legs behind the chair legs, draw a bow, and aim directly behind you.

>>47237316
>>47237352
By being gud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzszLBJf4VQ

>>47237365
>>47237352
But that's because a human is stapled onto a horse via stirrups and a saddle. They have no leverage otherwise.

>>47237365
Gotta wonder how often someone just straight up gets an arrow through the leg at these events

>>47237400
Stirrups and saddle generally aren't enough, you have told hold onto the horse with squeezing your legs if you're holding a bow too. In fantasy terms I think a centaur would have an easier time doing it.
>>47237424
I've been to a couple, never seen someone getting shot but it probably happens.

>>47237424
Don't you mean an arrow to the knee?

>>47237365
I'm still not seeing your point. He never shoots directly or near backwards and like i said earlier he shifts his legs and hip placement the entire time on that horse. Humans move fluidly the saddle and body are super glued to the horse. Unlike centaurs we have a LOT of freedom of movement that they just don't have. Skilled riders can turn their whole torso position 360 mid gallop if they're feeling retarded enough.

>>47237300
>A tiny change of trajectory while at full gallop isn't going to get you caught by anything
I think you're wrong, considering that you have to completely lose sight of the direction you're running for a few seconds while going at 30-40 km/h, but on the other hand, it's not like I have any practical experience with Parthian shots, never mind on a blinded horse.

>>47237500
I'd also risk a broken anything considering one fuck up that they don't see coming means their big ass glass canon bodies will be taking 20+mph tumbles. Its all around retarded.

>>47237496
I'm pretty sure they could turn their hips enough, it's not like there's a stake driven into their spine. But then again it's fantasy stuff, if oversized lizards can breathe lightning then horse girls can use bows.

>>47237496
The fuck are you talking about? He doesn't move fluidly, he sticks his lower body to the saddle and his upper body moves.

>>47237484
I wish I could physically vomit on your clothes.

>>47237543
Are you actually watching? He's actively standing like you would on any horse to avoid a broken pelvis and is actively turning at the knees to keep his hips aligned properly with the spine for a steady shot. And he still can't do more than shoot shit almost in front of him. You think something that has only spinal movement could do better without being hampered by the bounce and lack of range? Even if they had yogi style flexibility its bad. They might even severe their spine hitting a bump.

>>47237538
Well obviously they can use bows, we're just discussing whether they can perform a Parthian shot, which isn't all of horse archery. Without riders they have the advantage of being much lighter, so they can run faster and longer.

>>47237496
He's steering. You can't shift you legs or hips while trying to do a Parthian shot because that turns the horse. to do it you're working entirely with your spine.

>>47237601
>You can't shoot an arrow while running because your hips will shatter as you run along the ground, centaur.

I would say centaur mounted archers would be more like early archers, where volley rather than accurate shots matter.

What if there were goat-halfling hybrids, and they were a fucking gorilla nightmare in mountain ranges?

>>47237604
>>47237615
Well the thing is you don't actually have to turn a lot with your spine to do that. you just turn your chest sideways and stretch your arm backwards. I've seen people do it a few times, it's not as spine breaking as you guys might be imagining.
>>47237601
To be fair Kassai is near 60 now so even though he's a good archer he's not that flexible, the 20-30 ish horse archers that you can see at events turn a lot easier.

>>47237644
They could certainly carry more arrows with them due to lack of rider.

>>47237644
Hold up here. You ever ride a horse? cause actual trot speed is the bouncied piece of shit in the world and if you're not actively standing with bent knees in the saddle the bounce and landing can and will fracture your grapes and pelvic bone. Its one of the reasons its so damn exhausting and why riders get bowlegged. You'd have to learn the rhythm and then shoot mid bounce at the apex for maximum stability. you don't have ANY of that freedom of movement or stability and "recoil control" on a torso physically attached to a horse and actively turning that spine when the hooves impact the ground would at best shatter a disc.

>>47237710
My point is he's turning at the knees snd maintaining rigid posture because of it he could also turn at the hip but thats begging for stress fractures an fouled aim.

>>47237695
>gorilla

>>47237756
Spotted the newfag.

>>47237717
They're not just humans on horses.

File: cat frown_4.jpg (20KB, 500x333px)

20KB, 500x333px

>>47236118

>It's a "neckbeards apply their rumor mill-derived knowledge of the world to a fantasy setting" episode

>>47237749
I don't think it particularly matters, centaurs would be technically standing all the time too.

As effective as mounted archery may be, centaurs wouldn't be well suited for it, because unlike a man on a horse, a centaur can't watch where he's going while trying to shoot mans, and at horse speeds and mass, not watching your footing is a good way to end up with a broken lots of things.

>>47237484
I imagine that there aren't a lot of people proposing at archery events, but I guess you never know.

File: centaur_by_iririv.jpg (750KB, 1626x659px) Image search: [Google]

750KB, 1626x659px

>>47236716
Great, their spines are already snapped in half, no problems

This could solve the retreating problem; just have centaur waists super flexible like owl necks

>>47237018
no we don't

>>47236866
Honestly there isn't a great setup for the basic design, as it's kind of screwy for biology. For one thing just breathing solely through a human mouth and nose would have a huge amount of resistance in the way making it difficult to get enough air to fill what are actually required to be enormous lungs. Lungs large enough for a horse could not actually fit inside a human chest, and having a second set of lungs in the lower body is rather awkward for several reasons. Having a simple airway all the way through the human torso to the horse body would also have issues for just for the length the air has to travel. Having two hearts though would be fine though, but you would want both of them to be pretty large, and at a minimum each able to support the resting blood flow, else any imbalance in the body could prove problematic. I would suggest though four lungs, with the ability to close them off each pair, so that you don't ever have the horse pair breathing in air from the human pair or the reverse, then you do need a large open airway all the way through. With a pair of hearts also similarly separated you then just need to put the rest of the organs in the horse body.

>>47238351
That amount of flexibility wouldn't be reinforced enough for actual riding anon.

>>47238489
Maybe it breathes through its butt.

>>47238512
Damn. Ooh, a kind of floating spine system? Like chicken necks, reinforced with horse-neck/human-waist muscles?

>>47236634
>It shouldn't be any more difficult than it is for a human to run and shoot.

Probably not, no. On the other hand, people can't run and shoot bows with any accuracy. In b4 that Danish trickshooter, he uses a 20lb bow, you couldn't kill someone with that if you tried.

>>47238515
Sure you can solve it like that, or giving it the ability to breath from some other new orifice, but that kind of leads to awkward questoins such as, "why the fuck do your centaurs have a blowhole?"

>>47238608
Maybe its human half is cut off right under the butt, instead of over it, so it has a human butt which it instead breathes through.

>>47236788

First, learn some grammar. Second, pulling target shooting bows is really easy, and irls are generally better shots than men. Pulling a warbow, on the other hand, requires huge strength. Maybe 1 in a thousand women is strong enough to pull such a bow, "girls" as a general class should avoid bows as weapons and stick to swords or better yet polearms, where their lower center of gravity is an asset.

>>47238636
You can do that with your centaurs anon, personally I don't want my centaurs to seem like a crude joke.

>>47236918
>it'd probably make up for that by simply being faster

Not in combat tho. A horserider can concentrate on aiming and the rhythm of the bow, while his horse concentrates on not putting it's foot in a hole in the ground / going in the right direction. A centaur has to do both, he would likely prefer to ride away from his enemies, then stop and fire his bow a few times, before riding off again if his enemies close the distance. More like a Dragoon than a true mounted archer.

>>47237059

BUENOS NOCHES MEIN FUHRER

>>47238351
>>47236866
>>47238489
Centaurs evolving from mantises could explain a lot of this. A natural reason for six limbs, in the proper orientation no less. They could have spiracles and huge book lungs that actually work better when they're running. They could have multiple hearts too(worms have 5)

I guess it's not as romantic as a torso sewn onto a horse though...

>>47238663
How about this then: owing to lack of digestive system in the human part, a larger and/or more powerful trachea/windpipe provides air to the lungs situated in the centaur's horse body.
>>47238701
That's pretty much what I was thinking of, yeah. When you've got more speed and stamina than any cavalry that can be fielded against you, then you don't have as much need to be accurate up close. Sure you lose the ability to fire while you're being chased by light cavalry, but that matters less when the light cavalry can't catch you either way.

>>47238656
>requires huge strength. Maybe 1 in a thousand women is strong enough to pull such a bow
here we go again, "hurrhurrr im stronger than grils grils are week they cant use bows" just kys neckbeard

>>47238799
>still cannot into grammar
>thinks he's worth replying to

>>47238560
That would work so long as you aren't applying force like say physical combat, jousting, or taking blows as that would severe the spinal cord. Just to put that in perspective chickens routinely severe their spinal cords hitting a wall or taking a tumble a little too hard or at the wrong angle. Now believe it or not its not common cause they aren't that stupid and they don't weigh much.

>>47238779
Spiracles don't work great for modern insects, anon. Just at that size they work better than lungs. they also get worse the bigger you go and lungs wouldn't be enough to move their bulk in any appreciably fast form.

>>47238904
>>47238779
>Spiracles

These are also largely why mantis-based centaurs don't work. To be as large as they are, they have to have lungs.

>>47238834
Then they're pure range. Having waists like a steadicam could let them fire more accurately while moving, add a kind of hypnotic grace.

It'd be a knowable weak spot, but they'd work to diminish it by wearing braced armour; less flexibility but it'd be like wanting to protect your neck (if your neck held up a third of your weight) and they'd have their entire evolutionary history to work on it. Maybe primitive or improvised braces would be made of rope like wrist wraps for boxers

>>47239016
They'd just have to worry about high speed runs as like i said earlier that shits not nice on anything and theres a reason a horses neck is so fucking reinforced.

>>47238834
>>47239016
Heck, boxers wrap their wrists BECAUSE our hands aren't made for hitting things

>>47236247
Jousting was done with specialized equipment and fragile wooden lances.

The "knights were bolted into 200 pound suits you couldn't even move in" meme comes from jousting armor.

>>47239045
Technically a different concept as it actually stops your phalange bones from deviating on impact by helping the tendon network do its job to ensure even distribution and avoiding boxer injury while keeping the wrist straighter also helping with transfering force. If you want to actually have impact absorption to prevent hand injury you'd wear actual padded gloves.

Why are you guys so determined to make bow-centaurs a thing? "Historically", the centaurs were savages, living in caves and using sticks and rocks as weapons. But even if you need a ranged weapon using centaur for some reason, in terms of their physiology, the javelin is a much better fit for them. With the added power they could put behind it, a centaur's javelin could punch thru mail armor as well as any lance. Centaur soldiers rushing in and out of range, hurling javelins each time, would represent a volley of firepower no mere horse archer could equal.

>>47236212
Right before impact a centaur woul lean its upper torso forward bringing the entire length of the spine into alignment directed toward the target. A sling might also be used anchoring the lance to the arm, shoulders, and back.

This allows the centaur to absorb impact similarly to how a ram would when headbutting, and would make a centaur a far more dangerous lance than a knight. Furthermore, in a joust a centaur could use slopped armor on its head and shoulders to make it a very difficult (small and angled) target.

>>47239207
Anon. Please go read up on spinal compression fractures.

>>47239121
I don't think a centaur's throw would be any stronger, the added momentum would be the same as for a rider.

File: 1417326468904.jpg (103KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 620x465px

>>47239295
Wouldn't the centaur's arm pop out of his socket or drop the lance first?

Most lances were designed to splinter anyways, to avoid knocking their rider off. Any charge that would result in the centaur's back exploding would have the lance pulled from their group, the lance breaking, or their arm dislocating well beforehand.

>>47239295
You fuckin retard. Creatures such as goats absorb impacts with their spines, just because humans have poorly adapted spines for absorbing shock doesnt mean every spine ever evolved has this problem, hence the rather common defensive and offensive tactic of many herbivore animals of utilizing headbutts that are inpressive enough to flip cars but dont injure the animal (bison for example).

All this thread is proving is centaurs a shit.
Go andelite. Fix all problems.

>>47239513
God, andalites are a mess

There was a thread about centaurs a while ago, that brought up them using javelins with atlatls, since they can put a lot of weight behind their throws and carry more than bipeds.

"Realistically", would a centaur run on all sixes or on the back four?

I guess keeping the upper torso low would help with blood flow right? The torsos arms keeping the body from tipping into the dirt or something. It would look odd as fuck but might be more optimal.

>>47239626
back four, front two would just be for manipulation of tools. They're not long or strong enough to put weight on. They'd really lean into their run though

>>47239626
They wouldn't be able to reach the ground, much less actually propel themselves forward.

Considering their upper body is coming out of the horse's neck, and with our spines at that part, they wouldn't be able to bend down very far.

Is it bestiality to fuck a centaur?

>>47239725
no, intelligent enough for free will

>>47239725

Yes because the gentiles are the horse parts.

>>47239761
You could just do the top bits. Same with mermaids

>>47239484
Only when it has the full support of the back and twisting motion that provide. You're talking focus all that lateral force in a downwards motion on the spinal column crushing all the discs therein even if the shoulder joint gives.
Heres a nice key for this, anon. The spinal is full of pain and ultimately unforgiving. Its designed to work to hold you upright and its a shit design at that. applying excessive forces in any directly especially anything that causes twisting with large impacts WILL cripple it. there are stories of human riders that aren't fused to horse whose spines gave out during jousting even after the joust broke. Best bet is for the glass cannon centaurs to stay safe being couriers or something they won't get crippled or mauled in or where their excessive size and food consumption won't hinder others.

>>47239745
Ain't no free will.

>>47239487
Those have incredibly muscles and thick spines. Your average centaur has an average human spine. you're trying to say apples are oranges here.

>>47239828
edit: sapient enough for consent or lack thereof

>>47239725
Are they sentient?
If yes then no. If no then yes.
Get it?

>>47239852
Well we've been over this before but horse are able to consent. Hell you'd be dead if they didn't consent they're a ALOT stronger. In fact theres times farmhands get killed cause a mare was feeling frisky and backed them into a corner and started rubing on them and they're damn puppies who don't understand their own strength. male horse will also do the same. Horses, like dolphins, don't give much of a shit and when they do you'll know.

>>47239837
A centaur, as a creature of pure fantasy, can have a spine that fits any requirements. The ones I would use would be more like the beastmens centigors, and the would have spines that support headbutting contests, just like every other beastman.

>>47239917
Then horses are like jailbait?

>>47239947
Then what happens after a horse sized creature is now in the fray and has a much less flexible spine to defend its hindquarters? Centaur loses everytime.

>>47239975
Put simply you can't physically rape horses without a large team and tranqs. They have sex for pleasure as much as we do minus the time for pregnancies, are unfettered by morals, and don't take no. If you're sexing a horse its because IT wanted to and the only say you have in the matter is initiating.

>>47239983
Sixty extra kilograms of armour made possible by lack of armoured rider.

>>47239983
Durability and flexibility are not mutually exlusive. And besides, horses defend their butts with their back legs. A centaur would do the same in a time critical situation. Stop being stupid man.

>>47239761
>not having centaurs with genitals on both ends for maximum fetish potential.

>>47236573
>couldn't run and shoot at the same time
It probably could, even if it wouldn't be good at it. You can run forwards and throw something to the side, can't you?

>>47239983
Attacking a centaur from behind probably results in him killing you in a single kick that shocks straight through any armor you may have.

>>47240104
Not very well.

>>47240074
That sounds terrible as now its encumbered similarly, is in a fray of pointy objects that can find weakspots, and when it does fall that extra weight will just make getting back up impossible. does centaur taste good cause with this tactical genius we're gonna have a LOT of centaur corpses to get rid of.

>>47240083
>>47240147
I said the fray not from behind. The flanks would be wide open and shoving your glass cannon legs are sharp edged is begging for cut tendons.

>>47240196
>a horse with sixty kilograms extra armour is less protected than a horse with sixty kilograms less armour
You don't make sense.

>>47240196
Its weird to hear someone assuming centaurs are more apt to get themselves wholly surrounded than, say, human warriors, especially since centaurs have speed and height advantages.

Also unlike a human warrior they can fight things behind and in front of them at once.

>>47240224
A moderately trained human has no chance in hell of reacting if a horse decides to kick him, unless it has to swing its body around to get you behind it.

>>47240224
Because Centaurs are probably not racing horses or even warhorses in breed.

my centaurs at least are rather stocky muscled beasts more akin to a mountain goat than a horse.

>Durable spines of Mountain goat
>Agility of Mountain goat

perfect centaur

>>47240224
A centaur would fight like a skirmisher, skirting around the edges of a formation, throwing javalins and lancing people on the edges with a sper or lance. It doesnt close until the formation breaks and then uses its superior speed to run down stragglers.

>>47236212
You assume that centaurs would be 1 to 1 when it came to strength of their respective halves. Assuming that they were real, the spine would probably be as strong all the way to the end, if not stronger towards the human body with an additional joint around the horse body's neck.

And how do we know that they just don't have hips from where the horse begins

>>47240306
>not having racially diverse centaurs
sounds like you need some affirmative action

>>47240246
Lets just frame this here.
Its wartimes and this retard centaur thinks the best idea is to charge head first into the enemy line just because he's armored. The line suddenly moved out of the way! Shocker, its not a solid wall. Now you have a slower moving target literally surrounded by swords and spears all poking juicy looking area's while its poor legs are being cut up because it thinks panicking and flailing about is also a good idea.
>>47240256
The issue is they're a much bigger target so when they are surrounded theres more sword per them than say a much smaller in footprint person. How many people do you think could stand shoulder to shoulder and surround s horse sized target and then imagine the same for a human. Both are only one being as well which limits options.

File: Centaur.jpg (1MB, 2048x1151px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1151px

>>47239808

>>47240306

Solved the problem

Just have the "Horse" part more like a Mountain goat.

With the human half having a squat mountain goat-like spine.


Or alternatively, Centaur Warrunner from Dota 2.

His torso is actually huge and the horse part stocky.

>>47240317
We're going off the situation of an idiot who thinks a centaur charging head first into a fight is a good idea. That would mean they've already failed to do what you're suggesting.

>>47240361
The fact that 10 well armored and coordinated humans could kill a centaur in a frenzied melee while losing perhaps half their number is not a solid argument explaining why centaurs are poor fighters.

>>47240361
>>47240386

The Much larger and heavily muscled Centaur plows through the ranks of men, surrounded, he begins to thrash, crushing men into pulp under his weighty hooves.

Now imagine 30 Centaurs doing thing.

>>47240361
>the line suddenly moved out of the way
How the fuck does a tightly packed line of humans just "move out of the way" of a cavalry charge?

>>47240361

>Its wartimes and this retard centaur thinks the best idea is to charge head first into the enemy line just because he's armored. The line suddenly moved out of the way! Shocker, its not a solid wall. Now you have a slower moving target literally surrounded by swords and spears all poking juicy looking area's while its poor legs are being cut up because it thinks panicking and flailing about is also a good idea.

And that doesn't apply to the knight on horseback? Clearly 'Getting out of the way' was the true way to defeat cavalry all along!

>>47240362
How is he not falling on his face?

>>47240361
In general, charging an enemy who is:
1. More mobile than you
2. Has a height advantage
3. WILL kill you in one kick
is not the smartest idea.

If a centaur allows himself to be surrounded he's in nearly as much trouble as a human is. So fucking what? THE way you beat multiple opponents is by moving away and fighting them one at a time -- in any group there will be faster and slower people, meaning they will split up on their own.

And again because a centaur is a vastly superior combatant to a human he has an advantage there, as well as being able to throw pilums (and has more carrying capacity for extra throwing weapons to carry!) or what not.

The only advantages centaurs have over human is in melee combat, ranged combat, height, strength, and speed. Besides that they're about equal.

>>47240409
Moving out of the way is the same as breaking formation. This was possible to do against a single chariot, but doing the same against say 5 to 10 centaurs is flirting with having your entire formation break and route.

File: Herc centaur.jpg (98KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1280x720px

>>47240440
>>47240437


Let's break his argument further and say Centaurs look like this

>>47240414
Yup.
Step 0: Put a banana peel behind you
Step 1: Wait for retard knight to charge you
Step 2: Do a barrel roll under the lance
Step 3: Bisect horse and rider with a simple vertical slash from your warhammer
gg no re

>>47240407
You'd have the issue of 30 centaurs making a fatal mistake and getting speared down. You also have the issue of your defensive wall have more gaps and less arms in a given space. Its overall less efficient.
>>47240409
Only the front line is tightly packed. Maybe 2 rows deep. You'd fall backwards a bit and let others slide in front and to the sides. again it was a tactic used to effectively cripple head on attempts at cavalry as it essentially funneled them into a wedge shaped death trap of spears and shields and you wouldn't have space to wheel and get out. This is why cavalry ended up being harrassers or breakers of smaller groups.
>>47240414
It kinda was. You also attacked the feet which can't be armored which crippled the horse.

>>47240492
Yeah, I forgot cavalry were useless throughout the entire history of warfare, my bad.

Spears literally always forever countered Cavalry/

>>47240440
Its not breaking formation. the action itself is changing formation. You'd be making death funnels and infantry spearheads. The spearheads would work too as again the gaps that crntaurs having less arms and therefore less line coverage would make.

>>47240492
>>47240539

>This is why Cavalry ended up being harassers and breakers of small groups.

Throughout most of History Cavalry charges were used to clear the fucking field m8.

Are you fucking high? A Heavy Cavalry charge was devastating to even the most dense spear wall.

>>47240414

Broken infantry can't hold cavalry who are more maneuverable and faster. Successive waves would cut you go ribbons. The only way for infantry to hold against cavalry is to form defensive formations (square) with a stand off weapon like a spear, pike or bayonet. Thousands of years of warfare confirm this despite you making up some bullshit stratgey off the top of your head. Infantry that break ranks do never win against cavalry.

>>47240492
Those 30 Centaurs look like >>47240468


try spearing those down.

>>47239725
Shockingly, most languages in the real world have not felt the need to establish definitions for words that meaningfully address living in a society with non-human sapients.

The introduction of such a situation (eg, how things go in Gate) would necessitate the change of language.

Let's break it down though. Bestiality is of course just a word, but it's used as jargon in psychology and law. In these situations, "Bestiality" refers to a human performing sexual acts with a non-human animal. Though it is jargon, and thus held to a stricter technical standard than everyday language, it's still made by normal people with normal needs to address a normal society.

So really, my assumption of going by currently legal/psychological jargon is somewhat silly. People wouldn't really apply it that way (barring some sort of weirdo legal nuisance because of how court systems tend to work), and having them apply it that way would be a breakdown in believably of a fantasy work.

But going forward anyways the question is: "are centaurs non human animals"?

"human" is generally defined as Homo Sapiens, but many taxonomists would say that the entire "homo" genus consist(ed) of humans.

Returning to the above, many settings actually do posit that most humanoids are animals that are closely related to humans, either in the Homo genus or at least hominids.

So if they're Homo Kentauros, it would not technically be bestiality.

On the other hand, there are settings where centaurs are mystical, possibly fae creatures (relatively rare, but honestly, almost mandatory for that kind of body plan to work). In those settings centaurs would be non-human, but they wouldn't be animals. So again, not technically bestiality.

(In fact, this question applies to aliens too. They're biological, but having evolved on another planet, they're not even members of the animalia kingdom.)

>>47240570
>>47240571
To his defense, a centaur force would have to rely almost entirely on cavalry, barring close alliances or mercenaries. It gets harder to use cavalry to exploit weak spots if you don't have any other troops to tie the enemy up with.

>>47239725
>>47240604

But really, nobody's gonna care about the technical definitions.

So you're going to have the two arguments. Either >>47239761 (PS: gentiles are not horses you jew) that "The part you fuck looks just like an animal part, so you're probably harboring secret zoophilia if you want to do this."

Or >>47239745 "the gross part of bestiality is that you're fucking something alive but not sapient, so this isn't gross."

Realistically, in Monster Musume land, laws would be rewritten to allow it, and psychologists would, by and large, treat it as not being a paraphilia. But in some places white people that screw black people are still called "monkey lovers", so at the very least you'd still face discrimination for centuries.

>>47240636
Not really. If we assume Centaur are not dramatically outnumbered Heavy Cavalry could work as a flying anvil of a swords, designed to charge directly into the maw of an enemy army and smash the teeth.

Imagine extremely heavily armored centaurs carrying broad shields or poleaxes.


Centaur Warfare would pobably be more like a series of rapid cavalry charges then redeployment, much like French Heavy Cavalry.

>>47240636
this. There'd be nothing pushing formations weak spots before cavalry charges so they could shore up in boxes and other defensive formations. You'd just have a lot of nose blooding.

>>47238656
>warbow
What is this mysterious thing you speak of?

An English Longbow perhaps?

Which most MEN can't even pull?

>>47240741
If you're arguing semantics, just like to say you DRAW a bow, not pull it.

ITT: people who have never read John Varley.

>>47240636
An all cavalry force doesnt really rely on breaking fighting formations to win wars. They can use that mobility to strike behind enemy lines, or simply harass formations for hours until moral breaks and the broken formations can be hunted. The only way to defeat centaurs would be through missile weapons because an advantage in mobility would never be realistically atainable, and therefor forcing a melee confrontation on your own terms would be impossible.

>>47240758
It's not semantics if it actually matters. Most men can't draw an English Longbow. Whether or a not a girl would be able to is irrelevant if it's something 1 in 50 men can't do either.

If he means a composite bow, a 50 pound draw is reasonable even for a fit woman, and it will kill people just fine.

File: Centaur.jpg (70KB, 1204x523px)

70KB, 1204x523px

How about this then?

>>47240884
Well at least i can look them in the eyes when i kill them.

>>47240782
>An all cavalry force doesnt really rely on breaking fighting formations to win wars. They can use that mobility to strike behind enemy lines, or simply harass formations for hours until moral breaks and the broken formations can be hunted
I agree, but right now we are mostly discussing heavy shock cavalry. It's hard to rout an enemy army if all you can do is charge into their formations. The primary purpose of crushing formations is to create panic and chaos in order to cause the enemy army to rout. But if most enemy formations are untouched and not threatened by anything else, then charging into one or two of them isn't going to be all that effective. To my knowledge, and I'm admittedly not a military historian, and therefore wrong about much.

>>47240884
Don't talk to my or my son ever again.

>>47240884
NO.

File: gnoat.jpg (300KB, 1179x1531px)

300KB, 1179x1531px

>>47237695
>What if there were goat-halfling hybrids, and they were a fucking gorilla nightmare in mountain ranges?

Not quite halflings...

File: ha'pony.jpg (274KB, 1193x1539px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1193x1539px

The halflings are lowlanders apparently

>>47240984
>>47240945
>>47240904
I like how people were much more open to the fucking mantis centaur abomination

>>47241061

Because it was actually pretty cool.

>>47241061
It didn't remind me of Down's syndrome.

Yanno, centaur archers don't really need shot on the run stability, since they can just quickly stop and line up a shot then keep moving. Mounted archers I don't think can stop and go so quickly.

So how would a human army deal with a centaur one? Would things like barricades, spike traps, cannons and the like be viable?

>>47240782
So these ceantaurs have limitless stamina and are covered by, apparently, so much heavy armor that weapons are useless against them ?

How have humans survived? This mythical God beast race would have driven humans exstinct by this point.

>>47236212
Centaurs are physiologically unreasonable anyway who gives a shit?

>>47241570
You are not running away from non mounted infantry, you are retreating from a Calvary charge, hence why you are also on horseback.

>>47236750

They'll also have bigger dicks than you.

>>47242688
About 54 people replying to this thread if I had to guess. I'll agree that arguing about the physiology of a fantasy creature is stupid, but look where we are. And sadly enough, 4chan is probably the highest quality socialization I tend to get nowadays.

>>47242666
>>47242666
Several anons have argued my side, but my own posts have never argued for heavily armored centaurs. Im the one that sees them as skirmishers. Diving into ranks of foot soldiers isnt what I see them doing.

>>47241059
>>47241038
>Not having elf deer centaurs, dwarf mountain goat centaurs, orc dire boar (or maybe bull) centaurs halfling dog centaurs and gnome raccoon centaurs
TOP PLEB

>>47236685
Because if the centaur turned around, they would not be able to see where they were going, and would likely turn an ankle or do a stupid horse injury like horses do. Try running--on rugged terrain, no less--and while you're doing that, firing a bow at a target directly behind you.

>>47242646
Cannons are viable in 99% of everything maybe not appropriate but.

>>47242646

Shitloads of pit traps, shield walls, longbow archers to try to counter centaur archers, and building fuckhuge cities.

>>47236522
Calm yourself /k/
Takes a special type of nut to practice being combat effective with a 120lb draw bow these days.

something that bothers me is how centaurs are used as cavalry of any sort. All cavalrymen tended to have remounts, because horses actually have worse endurance than humans. Over long time periods(a day or more), people can travel farther. This is compounded by having a rider/human torso for the centaur. They have to carry the weight of half a grown man on their front legs, lets say 80 pounds. That's just asking for long term injuries.

Another problem is how fragile horses are. They're big animals, with all the obvious benefits of it, but a broken leg is basically a death sentence. Comparatively, if a human knight's mount snaps it's leg in half, he can have another brought to him from his stables. A centaur's entire life of weapons training is worthless due to what would be a minor inconvenience for a human.

Honestly, centaurs are only good as cheap skirmishers, acting like the pirates to make up for their weaknesses. Rapid advance, attacking undefended settlements, and backing off when faced with resistance.

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1424231339761.jpg (198KB, 1119x714px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1119x714px

>>47236866
An idea of centaurs physiological.

>>47236437
Well, yeah. They can't turn around fully in the saddal, or drop to one side of the horse to use it as cover. Also, they actually are the horse, so if it gets shot out from under them, they are dead aswell.

>>47240306
mountain goat
>>47238779
mantis
>>47240884
with (large)deer body

I kinda want a centaur race with these 3 as the different ethnicities.

Only the mountain goat race can handle really handle cavalry charges. Mantis race for more fluid and graceful movements, craftsmen and the like. No torso race as a generally inferior infantry, but in general can travel greater distances and is thus superior at logistics.

And none of them use bows while running. Closest approximation is a couple mountain goat race carrying a mobile ballista aimed by a mantis.

>>47237801
Underappreciated.

>>47246300
That'd be hilarious to see. Some alien monstrosity holding on for dear life and attempting to shoot a ballists while the goataur's try not to face plant at a gallop.
Audience better have shields ready for stray bolts.

>>47238193
That was complete and absolute bullshit spun out of literally nothing.
There's no historical precedent, literally no one who wrote for the game had that in mind when they created the line.

>>47246477
I mean, the goataurs would TRY to keep a steady gait and prevent any jostling which would throw your aim, and they'd be better at it than horses....

But the battlefield is not exactly smooth stone flooring.

>>47246527
Nah. You're talking human torso weight up front without the horse body weight to stabilize, which still wouldn't work. You're gonna have a lot of face plants and a lot of injuries. Higher and fucked up center of gravity would almost entirely eliminate that goat grace the original poster was talking about. Coming back to that a warhorse body might be one of the few viable horse bodies in these situations.

File: 1436890852252.jpg (122KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1920x1080px

Consider the following:
>A tribe/city/nation of humans gains ever closer ties to a tribe/city/nation of centaurs
>Personal relations between individual humans and centaurs also grow ever tighter
>If there is enough mutual trust and admiration, centaurs allow humans to ride them like horses
>Humans use lances from horseback, just like with a "normal" horse
>The horses themselves use shortswords, shields and heavy armor
>If they for some reason remain stuck in melee fighting, the human will drop his lance and draw his longsword
The best of cavalry and infantry rolled into one package.

Of course, every victory is celebrated by a long night of song, food, drink and intimate handholding with interlaced fingers

>>47246658
It sounded more like he wanted the body for the horse, except with X part(spine) replaced with a better one(goat)

it reeks of too complicated to happen by coincidence, but I want to balance it out with other flaws later on. Things like inappropriate feet for goat tier balancing, not having the muscle of a warhorse without some very deliberate training, etc.

I was also banking on deliberate intention, skill and looking ahead and compensating in advance making up for the weakness of not being bred specifically for steady gait.

>>47246678
Wouldn't work. You'd have to constantly, both of you, try not to hit the other one, the armor on the centaur would make it crawl and the human would get picked off, the human would have to deal constantly with the shit the centaur would pull unless they're good war horses and die below you without unseating you, shortswords kind of mitigate the height advantage,and a human with a single longsword wouldn't be able to protect both flanks and rear. Its the same reason cavalry hand multiple mounts, that horse will eventually fucking die and you're gonna have to replace it and you want centaurs to take that place and then encumber them as it that would be better. best case scenario it turns its poor weight crippled ankle before a fight and retires, worst case it dies a very rough death because you're treating it like a horse.

File: 1437578149405.png (31KB, 400x300px)

31KB, 400x300px

>>47246730
Good point. Finding a plausible battlefield use for them is harder than I thought. It's almost like they're manmade abominations rather than creatures that actually exist or something

>>47246816
Its best to just put them up in the entertainment sector or manual labor field.

>>47242666
Again, a heavily armoured centaur wouldn't weight more than a lightly or entirely unarmoured cavalry horse and rider, aka a skirmisher. We're talking like at the most 40 kg for a full plate barding, which is less than even a light rider. Of course, a lightly armoured centaur skirmisher could outlast mounted light skirmisher as well.

>>47236118
Wow. Turns out a vocal subsection of /tg/ knows nothing about cavalry lance charges AND archery. Not to mention human biomechanics and the relevant battlefield tactics. How fucking disappointing.

Centaurs would be about as fine charging with lances as people were, and only slightly disadvantaged when it comes to archery, not even taking into account the adjustments to human-horse mounted archery that they would have inevitably developed while they were learning how to bow.

>>47247919
If you're going to say most people ITT are wrong you'll have to come up with a more detailed argument than "because I say so". I'm not saying you're not right, but please explain how.

>>47236711
It makes this creature even more frail.

>>47246730

>armor on the centaur would make it crawl

Armored horses were a thing back then.

Also, a lot of your issues are things that mounted soldiers already had to deal with.

Centaurs have the benefit of being able to communicate, thus making training a helluva lot more easier.

Of course, you could also make a big ass cow plow thing (the thing they used to stick on steam trains so hitting cows on the tracks wouldn't derail them) with long handles, so the centaur and it's rider can hold it and just charge through shit.

>>47246730
You have no imagination, and would be a terrible military innovator.

>You'd have to constantly, both of you, try not to hit the other one
Nope. Human's couching a lance that goes past the centaur's ribs, centaur is free to do his swordboarding.

>the armor on the centaur would make it crawl and the human would get picked off
Heavy cavalry weren't as fast as light cavalry, but it didn't mean that the enemy could just come up and knock you off. In any case, you are charging TOWARDS the enemy and the armoured centaur with a shield is in FRONT. Additionally, armour is not that heavy; you can go read up on knights tying on two, six, eight, even twenty full suits of armour on their horses. If those historical sources don't float your boat, just do the math on the actual weight of armour vs a destrier's carrying capacity. Remember, this is ideally one charge, though I'd say you'd have to be able to make up to five wheeling charges at most to match up to real-world applicability.

> the human would have to deal constantly with the shit the centaur would pull unless they're good war horses and die below you without unseating you
Here's the thing; what if they get a full charge in, then the human drops his shattered lance, dismounts, and draws his sword? And presumably, trained centaur troops would have as much knowledge, will, and discipline not to throw you to your death as a regular horse. Literally a cavalry charge and an infantry drop all in one.

>shortswords kind of mitigate the height advantage
So use a suitable cavalry sabre. Are you retarded?

>human with a single longsword wouldn't be able to protect both flanks and rear
You're already covered by the centaur's shield and sword, which is as much as real heavy cavalry had to guard their flanks (and rear! lol). You're not even making sense anymore, and in any case my plan is to have them hop off into melee after impact, making the chaos of the charge even worse on the enemy.

>>47248033
It's a big thread. You want to sum up for me the arguments against centaur lancers and centaur archers that you, personally, find credible? It would be greatly appreciated.

>>47248118
> Its the same reason cavalry hand multiple mounts, that horse will eventually fucking die and you're gonna have to replace it and you want centaurs to take that place and then encumber them as it that would be better.
You're going to have to interpret this one for me, as you are becoming incoherent. In any case, having spare centaurs is as doable as having spare horses.

>best case scenario it turns its poor weight crippled ankle before a fight and retires, worst case it dies a very rough death because you're treating it like a horse.
See above for why your "weight-crippled" assumption doesn't hold up. As for dying a rough death... you do remember these are soldiers, right? In all-out war? "Rough death" is pretty much the expectation, with a sprinkling of comradeship, "glory in the afterlife", and the faintest chance of survival.

Seems like "realistic" or "practical" centaurs would be something like humans that are psychically linked with horses to the point where they're one creature in two separate bodies.

>>47248306
How so?

>>47248320
Two sets of eyes, for one. And more plausible biology, while still keeping the basic feral aspect, assuming the "man" part is barely more civilized than the "horse" part.

>>47248356
That's basically a non-answer. I'm going to ignore you now.

File: 1452215078782.gif (409KB, 460x295px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 460x295px

>>47248356
>psychic link is more biologically plausible than a creature with unusual bone stucture

>>47248143
I have nothing to say about the anatomical aspects of lance charges, because I don't know anything about that. When it comes to archery I'd say they'd be worse at or incapable of performing a Parthian shot due to anatomical reasons, which doesn't at all disqualify them as horse archers, especially given their greater speed and endurance. I don't think they would be very good at accurately picking and hitting targets to their side either, because at those speeds it could easily lead to injury to look away from where you're going. A cavalry archer's mount keeps its eyes forward even when the archer aims sideways. Horse anatomy and gallop can very easily lead to injury. But again, their speed and endurance could make up for it by making them much more capable of moving closer and then retreating. Just generally less suited to picking targets anywhere but within say, 50 degrees from their front while moving at speed. Could fire sideways but with less time to aim.

>>47248491
A cav archer is trained to take the shot in the span between a horse's hooves leaving the earth and landing again, so I don't think glancing aside for that amount of time is a problem. Also, a horse that is rolling it's eyes or throwing it's head still maintains a gallop without insta-dying. I maintain that any terrain that allows a proper cav charge in the first place is not any more or less deadly for having to look aside for a moment.

Keep in mind, all of the problems with a human torso running on a horses body whether it's aiming a bow or not; I hope we can agree that part of the hypothetical of centaurs existing somewhat like in fantasy is that they can at least run around naturally without undue risk of turning an ankle and being thrown to their deaths. I mean, a reasonable parallel should be a man running full tilt and then turning to shoot a gun. A centaur would have to leap into the air a bit to give enough clearance to turn, take the shot, and land on their feet instead of falling prone like a human gunman would, but that's more or less trivial to coordinate since you are now one creature instead of two.

Since you will probably agree that horses irl can and will make jumps from a gallop on wild, un-manicured ground, I would say that you have over-estimated the risk of injury and death for this particular maneuver.

>>47248651
Nobody mentioned insta-dying, only an increased chance of injury. I never said they couldn't do it either, just that they'd be in more of a hurry to pick a target. I don't think your parallel is very accurate, because the speeds involved are so different. But sure, a centaur could slow down to jump in order to aim and fire, but really skilled mounted cavalry archers don't have to do that. It's probably a very minor handicap, but it's there. Not sure what you mean by "jump", because horses can vary their jumps quite a bit. If we're talking steeplechase jumping heights, then that's a sport with horses and it's dangerous as fuck to horse and rider both. If the choice is being eaten or jumping in full gallop, then jumping in full gallop is probably preferable, but other than that horses avoid jumping at full speed.
But all of this depends on another factor as well: formation. How many centaur archers, packed how tightly? The more centaur archers, the more tightly packed, and the more tightly packed the larger the chance of injury from small errors. It would take a lot more group coordination to have the horses perform small jumps, while looking away, while close to other centaurs in full gallop.
Not saying it can't be done, just that it seems less convenient than for mounted archers to me. Sure they could slow down, but then they lose their main advantage, which is the increased speed of an riderless horse. So again, I'm not saying it disqualifies them as horse archers or anything, just that they're not insignificant issues.

>>47249003
I don't think slowing down is needed at all, where did you get that? By jump, I meant whatever range of jumps is needed to do the task I outlined. As far as horses jumping at full speed, it is much more practical than trying to jump from a canter or trot. Have you seen herds of horses running together, how close they are? A small jump is part of a normal gallop anyway, on rough terrain. That's part of what horses are doing when they're looking where they're going; scouting out rough spots and obstacles ahead and avoiding or jumping them.

I suppose centaurs don't have the ability to just let their horses run as they will while they shoot, but a centaur would more or less go on autopilot the same way a human doesn't have to think about where he puts his feet when he's running on uneven ground and throws a ball. Presumably, the centaur would be more sure-footed than a human by default, matched by definition to how much more dangerous running could be for them.

Another thing I think we are underestimating is the advantage of being one, cohesive biological organism versus two organisms communicating primitively through a combination of knees, leaning, and pulling. A centaur in a fantasy scenario would probably be capable of such feats of dexterity for man-horse combination tasks that we can't even imagine it, comparable to what we like to imagine a natively integrated man-machine hybrid would be capable of compared to a man piloting a machine in a sci-fi scenario.

Incidentally, I tried the locked-hips&ankels chair experiment you mentioned upthread. Try it again, and this time, twist and BEND, so your torso is parallel to the ground. This posture allows me to aim my bow directly behind me, even further, comfortably, and is actually attested in period artwork. Keep in mind that these are probably horsebows we are talking about, with the shorter bottom halves that will easily navigate.

>>47249268
>it is much more practical than trying to jump from a canter or trot
All I'm saying is that it's more practical to not have to jump or look away from where you're galloping. Not disqualifying, just possibly inconvenient. If a centaur archer can do a small enough jump for it to be inconsequential while having the time to look away, pick a target, aim and fire, then all is obviously well. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it seems like a distinct possibility.
>I suppose centaurs don't have the ability to just let their horses run as they will while they shoot
That's basically what I'm saying. A mounted rider can let his horse go really fast because the horse keeps looking at where it's going. A horse can look to the side while galloping as well because its eyes are on the sides of its head, allowing it to see right where it's going despite turning its head. A human's eyes are in the front, and loses sight of what's in front of it if it turns its head 90 degrees.
>but a centaur would more or less go on autopilot the same way a human doesn't have to think about where he puts his feet when he's running on uneven ground and throws a ball.
I don't really know how capable people are of dashing while accurately aiming sideways. If it's just aiming in a general direction, then sure, would probably be perfectly simple for centaurs, but I mean really picking a target and not just aiming at a mass of people.
>Presumably, the centaur would be more sure-footed than a human by default, matched by definition to how much more dangerous running could be for them.
Depends on how realistic one wants to be. High realism, it would have less coordination, because a larger body requires much more brain to coordinate. It's for that reason that brain:body ratio is a more accurate measure of intelligence than brain size alone. But you're obviously right in that a centaur could train its coordination a lot more efficiently than a human can train a horse.

I think it's important to remember we're talking about a fantasy setting that likely has healing magics, so a broken centaur leg isn't nearly the death sentence it would be for a real world horse.

>>47250562
It wouldn't be a death sentence for a centaur anyway, the problems are that it's basically impossible to keep a horse off the leg, and the main issues exist only in race horses, where their bones have become so light they bend and shatter when breaking causing healing to be problematic and have a best outcome to be a bent bone. If the centaur has sturdy bones that don't tend to bend and shatter it wouldn't be a huge problem in the first place. Then even if a centaur has a deformed leg, it isn't going to ruin their life any more than it would for a human, as not all jobs a centaur can do will require they even have legs.

What if the lance was made out of the most hardest material in the universe, and if they charged into something that's too hard to stab what if they get bounced backed instead of breaking their spines

>>47250754
that's not how physics work

What if the centaurs were unicorn centaurs and use Their magic to throw their lances via telekinesis to prevent breaking their spines without charging

>>47253794
What if they're unipegataurs?

>>47236247
This. Jousting is totally possible. Even if it wasn't polearms of any kind still make sense with centaurs. Especially with that insane height advantage with the solid footing that comes from having four feet. Centaurs are ideal polearm users.

>>47238489
And yet giraffes manage to get air down all that hella long neck into their bodies, so there's no reason a centaur couldn't draw air through a human torso into the lungs of its horse body. It would probably require centaurs to have some big ass nostrils though, or some set up where they breath through their mouth and mose simultaneously while running

>>47240422
counterweighted

>>47239121
Because bows are what centaurs use in Greek mythology, what with being based on reports of scythian horse archers and everything

>>47249618
>I don't really know how capable people are of dashing while accurately aiming sideways.
You should look up Simo Hayha. One of his more famous and well-documented kills was at a dead sprint, around a blind corner, straight through the enemy sniper's scope and into his eye.

>>47239121
Then you need to brush up on your Hellenic history, from where centaurs have made their name in modern culture.

>>47254105
>we ALL have super human abilities!
>we're all capable of shooting and kill 700 men in the dead of russian winter with no scope!
But wait! I know what you're thinking! What about that one crazy guy in the olympics?! Well we're now all olympic ready super humans just because 2 guys once upon a time were! Lets just adjust our expectations for physical feats according, everyone.

>>47244198
This. I imagine humans would live in large fortified communities, lots of watch towers and walls around fields and things. Also in more irregular terrain, mountains, marshes that kinda thing.
Or perhaps they coexist, with centaurs forming a knightly warrior caste, while humans are artisans and field workers and in times of war provide infantry and artillery support for the centaurs?

File: straw man army.jpg (39KB, 580x308px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 580x308px

>>47254334
You're strawmanning pretty hard there, son. I was responding to a reasonable person who doubted people had the capacity of dashing while accurately aiming sideways. Obviously, humans are capable of it. Get over your ebic rhetoric and try to be a human being for a second or two.

>>47254427
>A singular human was once capable of it
FTFY.

>>47254105
Funny thing about Simo is that I've never been able to find out who exactly it was that confirmed those kills. All the sources I've found say "the government did it" but none can explain how the government was able to confirm 500 kills made by a sniper who worked alone and didn't even have a spotter with him (since spotters weren't a thing back then). The whole thing smells heavily of wartime propaganda.

Maybe if the Centaur was drawn properly and not like a little fucking girl it would work. Proper depictions of Centaurs paint them as MASSIVE beasts with powerful shoulders and backs. Get your anime heresy out of here.

>>47254105
Also, the "through the scope" story is from an American sniper during Vietnam, or at least I've never heard about it in relation to Simo before.

>>47254647
Yeah. And if one human is capable of something, that means that humans have that capacity.

Anything that humans can do isn't superhuman, you idiot. Learn what words mean.

>>47254647
>Humans cant do thing
>There are examples of a couple people able to do that thing
>OH SO ONE PERSON CAN DO IT THEREFORE HUMANS ARE CAPABLE OF DOING IT?
Yes, numbnuts. If one person can do it, and that person is human, then technically humans as a species can do it.

>>47254725
It probably was minus the whole submachinegun and killing 300 people incident. Though his kill count probably wasn't that high.
Fun fact: russia STILL denies his existence. Not just his deeds but the entire fact he ever lived photos and all.

>>47254761
Simo claims his reason for avoiding scopes was that it gave away positions through glint and that was strictly how he found entrenched snipers and exactly what he aimed for so he claims he routinely shot people through scopes and that soldiers recovering bodies confirmed this.

>>47253845
One time. They're ideal till they'll do a charge or take a heavy swing. So, kinda shit, actually.

>>47254765
So i assume that one kid who's muscles won't stop growing giving him technical super strength suddenly means EVERY HUMAN EVER now has to have super human strength despite the fact the kids like one of 3 out of 7.4 billion.

>>47254828
Well, not just the glint; also their tendency to fog in certain weather, and the fact that you have to hold your head higher and therefore present more of your head as a target to the enemy, etc.

>>47254849
... He doesn't have "technical super strength". Also, humans having the capacity to be really strong isn't the same thing as EVERY HUMAN EVER being really strong, in the same way that humans having the capacity for anger doesn't mean that EVERY HUMAN EVER is angry all the time. That's just not what the "capacity" of a group refers to.

>>47254796
If Russia denies his legend there's even less reason to believe it, because "Soviet sources confirm many sniper kills in sector Simo operated in" is one of the few scenarios I can imagine in which the Finnish government would have been able to confirm his kills.

>>47254849
>technical super strength
oh my god guys we have an accredited man body sciencer in the thread! respect

>>47254864
The point is simo claims a LOT of contradictory bullshit that wasn't independently confirmed. You can't even find the names of the supposed soldiers who confirmed the shot placement on retrieved corpses despite the fact thats required for submission of a kill. One list that was found turns out to be utterly fake and was immediately denounced by the government as half the names were of deceased soldiers that died long before the fact and the others were fake. We also have to assume he knows exactly where he hit someone in camouflage that he couldn't wholly see and didn't check on somehow and was able to correctly remember and tell others about this.

>>47254945
As a historian, you have to adjust your criteria to conditions at the time. This was not an era where you could just snap a pic on your phone and tweet it #confirmedkills and just trust the image would circulate the blogosphere and survive on archive servers.

It's just weird to me that you are applying the "governments lie; beware self-serving government propaganda" to the Finn reports and not the Soviet reports.

Also, be aware that this kind of propganda is both more risky, less necessary, and less effective for a small, close-knit country like Finland vs a huge country like the Soviet Union. Not saying that the Finns are incapable, just that certain lies make more sense in certain contexts, and our suspicion level needs to reflect that.

About the "how could he even know", there are too many levels to discuss for it to be fruitful here, I think. Suffice it to say, when a person is competent at something in a lifetime career sense, it sounds like fucking magic to a layperson. Or "superhuman", if you're that one guy upthread.

**THE ACTUAL REASON CENTAURS CAN'T JOUST**

Ok you can equip a centaur with a spear and they'll be reasonably effective, lance cavalry in that sense were useful and popular for thousands of years. But they can't use the high medieval technique of "couching" the lance by bracing the cross-section against your purpose-built saddle so that the entire weight of the charging horse is transferred to the lance's point. A rider who attempts to run someone through with a lance just tucked under their arm can't strike with anywhere near the same force - and if he tries it'll be torn out of his grasp.

It's hard to see how a centaur could achieve a similar effect. It relies on human hands to aim the lance, and theirs are right at the front of their horse body so the lance's fulcrum would need to be somewhere behind.

>>47255130
But, anon! We have to magic handwave away anything that makes sense in this thread!

>>47255104
The point isn't in questioning Soviet reports, it's in finding a credible source of Simo's confirmed kills. Soviet, or Russia, denying it just kills one possible source said confirmation could have come from. No, you don't have to adjust your criteria either: lowering your standard of proof just because it was longer ago would make you end up believing that Achilles seems a pretty credible guy, historically speaking. That Finland would use such propaganda when in war against hopelessly more powerful enemy isn't exactly far-fetched either, considering the importance of keeping morale up under those extremely dire conditions. Who'd question it then, anyway? The soldiers were happy if they came back alive, going to bed in the cold with a hero around would have been much better than going around after combat playing hard-boiled journalist.

>>47239086
first, most of the specialized equipment was gear for keeping the knight safe when he got hit -- they mostly just put a slightly raised back on the saddle to help keep them on the horse.

Second, those lances were anything BUT fragile, knights just hit each other so fucking hard that they splintered often.

Third, jousting armor wasn't all that different from any other plate -- it just tended to involve a different helmet shape and what was essentially a target plate on the torso.

>>47255191
But you are saying that government reports aren't credible, and then using an opposing government report as a credible reason to discredit the first government report. That is extremely circular, and poor process in general.

>>47255130
By wearing a fucking harness and bracing the cross-section of your lance against it, transferring the entire impetus of the charging centaur onto its point? Anon, I know you're not a fucking moron, but the answer to your question was literally in your question. You don't even need to change the positional mechanics, except by moving it further up the centaur's horse body to reflect how further up the human portion is.

>>47255393
The issue at the end of the day is finland can't credibly confirm that shit. They tried once upon a time and people immediately tore that shit apart by pointing out the names used for submission were from long dead soldiers or entirely made up and now after denouncing that list refuse to even talk about releasing the "real" one. They never even explained why the list they originally claimed as real and spread about ended up being extraordinarily fake or why they were using it in the first place when they themselves would have immediately noticed the bullshitery.
I'm not saying gubment spookymen or soviet russia is right just that finland seems to be pulling a lot of shit out of its ass that crumbles with casual observation.

>>47255393
I don't believe Soviet sources at all, but their dubious dismissal of Simo still doesn't confirm Simo's kills, and it's a believable story concerning the confirmation of Simo's kills that I'm after.

>>47255521
Then why refer/respond to them at all? Also, the word your looking for is not "believable", as many people doubtlessly can and have attested to believing the story, making it de facto believable.

>>47255617
That was the other guy, and it does remove one possible method of confirmation. Had Soviet/Russia confirmed, then there would have been little reason to doubt, because why would they confirm if it wasn't true?

>>47255513
The thing is, you are using a level of credibility that simply can't possibly be achieved under the circumstances of the story in question.

I mean I'm sure you know this already, as you seem to be well-read on the general topic, but the Soviets were rather unlike the Nazis, who were markedly meticulous in keeping detailed records of their activities.

>>47255669
>when two dubious sources agree, it's probably true!
Some shaky shit there, bud. No disrespect.

>>47255696
>>when two dubious sources agree, it's probably true!
>Some shaky shit there, bud. No disrespect.
When two dubious enemy sources, who have no easily imaginable reason to conspire to create a war hero for only one of them to the detriment of the other, agree, then it has a hell of a lot more credibility than when only one dubious source, one that obviously benefits from it, claims it.

>>47255806
Because one of the winners in a war never has leverage over one of the losers in a war, right? Simply unimaginable. And post war-Soviets would NEVER make a deal with former enemies for short term gain, history has proven that right?

Sarcasm aside, the detriment was mostly morale during wartime. After wartime, when you've already lost... the return on investment for maintaining a ruse can decline rather sharply depending on conditions.

Besides:
- IF government reports are flimsy to begin with, and
- IF these governments, as you say, are enemies, and therefore have it within their interests to contradict each other
THEN either scenario (lying to agree and lying to disagree) is equally (in)credible.

>>47255933
If multiple sources on different sides saying the same thing doesn't provide more credibility than a single source, then history becomes a lot more difficult than it already is.

>>47254105
I don't think it's reasonable to expect entire units trained to emulate that kind of run-and-shoot.

>>47255933
>Sarcasm aside, the detriment was mostly morale during wartime. After wartime, when you've already lost... the return on investment for maintaining a ruse can decline rather sharply depending on conditions.
Simply maintaining the lie without putting in much effort is not detrimental compared to coming out and saying you lied, especially not when the worst case scenario of being revealed as a liar wouldn't be any worse than taking the initiative to reveal it yourself.

>>47255998
Something tells me you have not been introduced to the concept of differential historical analysis.

>>47256026
>thank kind of
Simo's amazing shot? No.

A shot parallel to the direction being run, on terrain comfortable for the agents in question,which was what was being discussed? Very reasonable to expect a unit trained to do so.

>>47256047
This is just not socio-politically true, especially in a post-war scenario. You are also presenting a false dilemma (either you must maintain the lie, or confess all).

>>47256107
Come on, bullshit an explanation for how one source is better than two sources with little reason to agree, I'm waiting.
>>47256174
How do you partially admit that the Simo story is bullshit? It doesn't exactly have many aspects to it. It's not a lie which any matter of governmental importance rests on either, so what socio-political risk is there in maintaining it? It's not like they're hiding higher cancer rates for people living near nuclear power plants or some shit that would actually harm the government for real if it was exposed.

>>47256282
Hostile and ignorant (of a specific thing or things, not in general) is a bad combination, anon. It leaves you in the position of being an asshole to the very people you are asking to explain things to you.

>>47256282
Okay innocent bystander stepping in for a moment to point something out. Saying that either
>multiple sources on different sides saying the same thing provides more credibility than a single source
or
>one source is better than two sources with little reason to agree
actually is a false dilemma. Or a bad application of Law of the Excluded Middle, whichever you prefer.

>>47256358
That's nice, but aside from the facts that calling an argument "bullshit" on 4chan isn't exactly the same as being hostile and that calling someone's argument ignorant is the exact same thing as calling it bullshit and thus hypocritical in the context, you failed to provide an actual argument.

>>47256437
Which in the context means that?

File: centaur body pillow.jpg (70KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x480px

>>47236516
My nigga.

>>47256725
The presentation of a false dilemma usually indicates that the guilty party is either making a bad faith argument, can't into logic, or doesn't have a strong enough grasp of the subject matter to make any headway on the subject without intense effort of which they are probably not worthy.

In context? You're either an asshole or a dumbshit. I don't know which they're accusing you of, because I know pretty much nothing about real world history. Hope that helps,

>>47257727
So you're just saying stuff without having even read what's been said on the topic earlier in the thread?

>>47238732

Ja, ja...

File: Buenos Noches.gif (2MB, 480x360px)

2MB, 480x360px

>>47258785
>>47238732