It's funny how you just stop saying stuff and say nevermind when you run out of points to say. And how were the 300 not true spartans? That ACTUALLY happened. Not the way the movie does it, but they were beast. And your friend/acquaintance/tv character/cartoon guy(s), probably did defeat a monk. But not the ones who spend their whole lives, who are BORN into the monastery, then train until they're old wise cripples who can leap over tall buildings. Lol.
The Spartans were awesome, yes, no one is denying that fact, for fear they developed time travel secretly, :O, but the most beast warriors? Are you kidding me? They would've had their butts handed to them by many of history's warriors. That is, if they were fighting on even ground, no armor, no weapons etc etc. With armor and a sword, the Spartan would beat pretty much everyone.
If you can take one to the ground they're dead. Okay fair enough. Good luck getting them there. They have a unique arsenal of weaponry that most of history's warriors had never seen until fighting them. So they would have to learn on the fly how to defend against these weapons, whereas the monks had all of their weapons and then the more basic ones, like swords and spears, so they would have known how to defend against it. They have a distinct advantage because of their weaponry.
Had to go get eyes dilated for an eye test... Can't type anymore... Ack!
Who said I was out of points to say?
It's funny how you always say you have an excuse for not typing stuff.
And you know what the monks never had that most other history warriors did have? Shields. And armor. Very important stuff!
Having no armor or shield will eliminate every advantage you might have for having a shiny weapon.
And about the spartans hand to hand abilities... you have NO idea what you are talking about.
They boycotted the olympic games because in hand to hand contests there were not allowed to gauge out eyes and bite out throats (really, they did).
They were trained in ALL matter of combat in their home city. In fact, in the battle of Thermopylae (the 300 battle) oficial records (yes, they exist) say that when surrounded by persian troops the spartans fought until their weapons broke. And when their weapons broke they fought UNARMED. And they were so good at it they had to be killed by arrows (which was the worst way for a spartan to die amongst their society since you are not killed by a worthy adversary).
The staff is both an offensive and defensive weapon.
You can not only hit things, but use it to block weapon hits, as well as trip up your opponent.
A barbarian who's all tangled up in a staff ain't going to be much good with most of his weapons.
Tangled up in a staff? Dude... it's not a lasso.
Trust me, when you face a guy with an axe and a shield and all you've got is a staff, you're in trouble.
That way the first strike of the staff is blocked and then you face an opponent in a close range (the axe is a closer range weapon) and a staff is useless at close range.
I believe the Monks to be the best 1 on 1 fighters in history. I mean there aren't armies of monks, so it's not like they could take on an army of roman soldiers, but if it was one versus one, I think the monk would win. This is IMO. So, it's debatable.
Well - I honestly believed that the best warriors in history were spartans. Nooo... not the 300 spartans everyone seen in the movies. But the true spartans, who were trained from the age of six in conditions that even the shaolin monks would have a hard time adapting to (there are not many child fatalities amongst the shaolin, and there were numerous amongst the spartans).
A spartan warrior was a feared combatant all over the ancient world. There was a reason sparta had no walls
And look, I know people who have defeated shaolin monks in real life in 1 on 1 combat (believe it or not, but I do) and... well... maybe that's why I'm not that impressed.
Sure, they have flashy skills and they jump high, but you take one of them to the ground and they are dead. Bah, never mind
My mom is a slut. She's divorcing my dad for no reason. She was cheating on him. So yeah, I'll join you in making fun of her, it doesn't hurt me at all.
And I know what you mean Silver Soldier, but it's easier to break than an axe or a sword. Comparatively it's easy to break is what I really mean.
Fair enough.
I'd like to continue a civil discussion here, so... here goes.
I wish to add another example of an advantage of an axe over a staff.
You can use a SHIELD with it!
Also, just to add some more info to the discussion - monks main weapons were NOT staves.
They trained in swords, knives, spears, spiked chains, half swords (big wide knives)... and... also, yes, staves.
But still, monks were not the only people who have dedicated themselves to fighting.
The vikings, for example, had an entire warrior culture where they trained for the great war in the afterlife and their warriors were completely devoted to one thing - fighting. And they didn't just do it seamlessly, they were good at it.
That's the only reason they were able to sack and terrorize most of europe (their seamanship aside, they fought on land, boats just made them reach their destinations faster).
Also were the romans, and the greeks, who were professional soldiers and warriors. And they were not monks.
In fact there is a theory that says martial arts all began in greece (pankration) and traveled to the east only when Alexander the great invaded india, where it developed to the direction we see today.
You see, monks may be the flashiest and most famous martial artists in our current culture, but they are not definitly the best there ever was (I'd even say they are far from it since a true warrior must test himself in real battles, while they lack the opportunities as long as they stay put in their temples), and certainly not the only ones.
Now - what has this to do with our discussion you ask?
Because if you read the lore of the barbarian (also, just so you know - the word barbarian does not mean one uncivilized. It's origin was anyone who did not have greek as a native language) they are a very developed nation with high military culture.
They are not bands of thugs and robbers terrorizing the country side. They are a civilization who practices martial skills in order to defend the most holy of Sanctuaries artifacts.
Well... they sort of failed at that but never mind that.
Just because the barbarian is big, huge even, does not mean he has no skill.
My own martial art trainer is over 100 kgs of pure muscle, and trust me, his skills are not effected by that for a second.
If you say that if a monk will meet a huge person who only has muscles and a couple of axes in a fight, yes, the monk with the staff wil probably be victorious.
But if you put a monk against a battle hardened weapon master like the barbarian in the diablo universe (and that is exactly what he is), clad in full plate armor and wielding weapons that weigh more than the monk himself - I'd put my money on the barbarian any time.
I'm not saying the Barbarian is bad, but he's not a weapon master either. So, he can swing a halberd just like he can swing a two-handed axe, woopty doo... I like to see it take a modicum of skill rather than just relentless slashing. He is a mindless brute, that's all he is! That doesn't mean he isn't THE most beastly mindless brute EVER, but all he does is run through hacking and slashing his way through all the different monsters. You can't say he isn't a mindless brute. He has the whole, history and whatnot, but they're all just slash slah slash stab hack stab stab hack slash slash hack hack hack hack stabbity stab mcstaberstein they don't really take time to think about what they're doing. They just attack.... In a fight, my money would be on the Monk, the Barb would be on the ground writhing in pain before he could get close enough to hit him. And if he's a Throwing Barb, the Monk would just catch all the axes and daggers and through them back.
What? Dude... he has Weapon Masteries.
Or do you say he just begins to hit more mindlessly. Give me a break...
And your analogy on a fight between two fictional characters when you obviously have no idea how both of them work is just... well... due to a lack of a better word... "lacking in common sense".
You assume that all the barbarian does is attacking with no skill and that's it. That's an assumption wrong at its core.
And the whole "monk would just catch all the axes and daggers" thing... I don't even know where to start.
I've been training in martial arts for 15 years now, AND I've seen many shaolin demonstrations, both live and on TV, and never ever ever EVER have I seen "catch the axe" technique.
When somebody throws an axe at you, you dodge. You don't try to catch it with your bare hands (or as you would probably envision it... with your teeth, just for the badassery of it).
And another thing - you know who the bo (staff as you call it) is good against? Unarmored opponents. You know... those who... have no armor (not death knights for example).
You know why there was never an army full of people with staves? Cause people wear armor to battle. (Again the death knights example)
Also, and that's a very very big disatvantage of the staff, it BREAKS after a hard strike to a hard surface (for example, head of an opponent). There was this dude called Newton who came up with this idea that any force you apply returns at the same amount of force in the opposite direction. Bad bad news for the staff.
Sure, it'll take the opponent out as well, but when you fight a swarm of demons taking out one and staying with a broken half weapon is not an optimal situation.
There are so many other holes in your theories I'd keep on trying to correct them, but I'll just leave this whole axe catching staff wielding barbarian slaying with no effort monk to you.
If you ever in real life try to fight with a staff against a sword (yeah, I have done that, stupid weapon training in martial arts... who fights with swords these days?) I'd like to hear your opinions on how the staff is the most versatile weapon, as you say.
P.S.
Oh... also... a staff is completely useless in close quarter combat. Almost forgot about that part. If you have a staff and someone closes in on you and grabs you - you might as well throw that thing away and begin a wrestling match.
I don't mean LITERALLY beat the thing for 37 minutes. But just beating something into submission is a little boring for me. I'd rather jab a staff into some pressure points and watch him fall, twitching, to the ground.
Dude... if you think you beat things into "submission" with axes, you've never seen an axe.
Trust me, while you'd be looking for that pressure point with a staff, somebody else will just bash you with an axe and be done with it.
Also, the barbarian in the diablo universe is no mindless brute.
He's a weapon master, one of the best meelee fighters in the diablo universe.
Bah... why do I even explain that to you? Stay with the staff idea... whatever makes you happy.
Monks practiced martial arts hours a day their whole life to hone concentration and discipline. How can someone who trains in a martial art all their life not be at least somewhat good at fighting?
Of course they were mostly peaceful, but the main purpose of a Shaolin Monk knowing martial arts was to fight evil and protect themselves and innocents.
So if DEMONS started pouring out of the ground I don't think they'd be hesitant to purge that evil from the world and protect all of humanity.
Also what does a church have to do with anything? :confused:
Shaolin monks main purpose was to fight evil and protect the innocent?
It depends on the Monk really. If you're talking about the Eastern Monks, they pwnd. Like blow your brains out with their fists, pwnd. If you're talking about the Western Monks, yeah, they sucked pretty hard in comparison. But I would much rather have a pwnage Monk with some crazy weaponry than a 6'9" beast of a man any day. It's more satisfying to watch something twice my height go down with a few well placed attacks with my staff than watching it go down after beating it to a pulp with two axes for about 37 minutes. It makes me happy on the inside.
I just want to say that if you beat something for 37 minutes with two axes, no way you take it down with a few well placed attacks with *your* staff.
Ofcourse this whole monk/barbarian issue is a matter of taste, but elevating your idea by diminishing the other is just dumb.
Yes here it is again. WoW!
The Shaman uses an almost identical system as the wizard.
You cast a spell, you use mana.
You cast another spell, you use more mana.
Mana for the shaman refills over time
Mana for the wizard refills over time
Stronger spells cost more mana for the shaman
Stronger spells cost more mana for the wizard
And so on.
I think they should take mana off the wizard beacuse they are clearly copying wow.
They need a name change and they need to completly redo the mana system beacuse it reminds me of wow.
I will not buy d3 unless they change the mana system of the wizard to something new and unique.
Also - both WoW and D3 have inventory.
This shall not pass! It's totally lame that characters in D3 wear armor and use weapons just as characters in WoW do.
Remove inventory in D3 at once or I shall declare this game to be total fail!!!1 Ze fail I tell you, ze fail!
I r ze original thinker, fear me cry...
(Just adding to the sarcasm of the previous poster, I liked it )
But I am able to understand Inarius frustration. He made this Sanctuary to escape the war, and all he wants is for the humans to worship him so he can live in peace (did i get this right?). Lilith wants to use the humans as a private army, that goes against all of the things Inarius wants. But Lilith follows the chaotic nature to kill. If she can kill, with these powerful human tools, why not? Inarius wants a ordered world, a ordered world can't contain war. The opinions of each and every angel and demon can't be alike, but their inner nature is probably the same. But this is just my thoughts based on quotes by other people I could be way off now.
Thing is - Inarius did not create Sanctuary. Inarius AND Lilith made Sanctuary (together with a bunch of other demons and angels).
And they both wanted to escape the war. In fact, it is written that when Inarius approached the band of demons with whom he created Sanctuary he was surprised to see how like minded they were.
Then angels and demons fell in love, did the deed, and that's how baby humans were born.
However when they saw what they created was more powerful than them Inarius wanted to destroy them and Lilith wanted to use them.
I honestly think angels and demons in the diablo universe deserve each other
"Blizzard can do anything they want! No one cares about your opinion you're wrong about everything! You suck at life! I know what I'm talking about you don't! Leave the forum!"
I r fanboi lol!
(Don't ban me... the guy asked for it in his post )
Though they have not shown any case of committing malevelont acts,. Again, give me some specific examples using your 'knowledge in lore' besides essentially saying, "I've read the books so this is why this is true". Show me a situation where the angels attacked a being just because....or where they have taken action against someone or something without the reason being illustrated through conversation of some type.
Allrighty -
"YOU SHALL NOT TAKE FROM ME SANCTUARY, Inarius reprimanded her memory. I WILL NOT LET YOU AGAIN DESTROY MY DREAM! SANCTUARY AND ALL IT CONTAINS WILL NOT BE YOURS, EVEN IF I MUST DESTROY IT MYSELF...AS IS MY RIGHT...
This is a direct copy/paste from the sin war trilogy. This is Inarius talking to himself in front of the mirror, imagining he is talking to Lilith.
Now tell me the truth, does that like the good guy to you?
0
Who said I was out of points to say?
It's funny how you always say you have an excuse for not typing stuff.
And you know what the monks never had that most other history warriors did have? Shields. And armor. Very important stuff!
Having no armor or shield will eliminate every advantage you might have for having a shiny weapon.
And about the spartans hand to hand abilities... you have NO idea what you are talking about.
They boycotted the olympic games because in hand to hand contests there were not allowed to gauge out eyes and bite out throats (really, they did).
They were trained in ALL matter of combat in their home city. In fact, in the battle of Thermopylae (the 300 battle) oficial records (yes, they exist) say that when surrounded by persian troops the spartans fought until their weapons broke. And when their weapons broke they fought UNARMED. And they were so good at it they had to be killed by arrows (which was the worst way for a spartan to die amongst their society since you are not killed by a worthy adversary).
Either that or... persians suck. You a persian?
0
Tangled up in a staff? Dude... it's not a lasso.
Trust me, when you face a guy with an axe and a shield and all you've got is a staff, you're in trouble.
That way the first strike of the staff is blocked and then you face an opponent in a close range (the axe is a closer range weapon) and a staff is useless at close range.
Really, it is.
0
Well - I honestly believed that the best warriors in history were spartans. Nooo... not the 300 spartans everyone seen in the movies. But the true spartans, who were trained from the age of six in conditions that even the shaolin monks would have a hard time adapting to (there are not many child fatalities amongst the shaolin, and there were numerous amongst the spartans).
A spartan warrior was a feared combatant all over the ancient world. There was a reason sparta had no walls
And look, I know people who have defeated shaolin monks in real life in 1 on 1 combat (believe it or not, but I do) and... well... maybe that's why I'm not that impressed.
Sure, they have flashy skills and they jump high, but you take one of them to the ground and they are dead. Bah, never mind
0
Fair enough.
I'd like to continue a civil discussion here, so... here goes.
I wish to add another example of an advantage of an axe over a staff.
You can use a SHIELD with it!
Also, just to add some more info to the discussion - monks main weapons were NOT staves.
They trained in swords, knives, spears, spiked chains, half swords (big wide knives)... and... also, yes, staves.
But still, monks were not the only people who have dedicated themselves to fighting.
The vikings, for example, had an entire warrior culture where they trained for the great war in the afterlife and their warriors were completely devoted to one thing - fighting. And they didn't just do it seamlessly, they were good at it.
That's the only reason they were able to sack and terrorize most of europe (their seamanship aside, they fought on land, boats just made them reach their destinations faster).
Also were the romans, and the greeks, who were professional soldiers and warriors. And they were not monks.
In fact there is a theory that says martial arts all began in greece (pankration) and traveled to the east only when Alexander the great invaded india, where it developed to the direction we see today.
You see, monks may be the flashiest and most famous martial artists in our current culture, but they are not definitly the best there ever was (I'd even say they are far from it since a true warrior must test himself in real battles, while they lack the opportunities as long as they stay put in their temples), and certainly not the only ones.
Now - what has this to do with our discussion you ask?
Because if you read the lore of the barbarian (also, just so you know - the word barbarian does not mean one uncivilized. It's origin was anyone who did not have greek as a native language) they are a very developed nation with high military culture.
They are not bands of thugs and robbers terrorizing the country side. They are a civilization who practices martial skills in order to defend the most holy of Sanctuaries artifacts.
Well... they sort of failed at that but never mind that.
Just because the barbarian is big, huge even, does not mean he has no skill.
My own martial art trainer is over 100 kgs of pure muscle, and trust me, his skills are not effected by that for a second.
If you say that if a monk will meet a huge person who only has muscles and a couple of axes in a fight, yes, the monk with the staff wil probably be victorious.
But if you put a monk against a battle hardened weapon master like the barbarian in the diablo universe (and that is exactly what he is), clad in full plate armor and wielding weapons that weigh more than the monk himself - I'd put my money on the barbarian any time.
0
I may be a little prick, but your mother likes me. If you know what I mean.
And she also prefers other items, rather than the staff.
0
And I just totally typed an entire article proving me to be completely right and you completely wrong... but... my dog ate it.
And it's gone.
And I'm soooo not typing it again.
But as you can obviously see by my eaten article, I am totally right.
And you're not.
0
What? Dude... he has Weapon Masteries.
Or do you say he just begins to hit more mindlessly. Give me a break...
And your analogy on a fight between two fictional characters when you obviously have no idea how both of them work is just... well... due to a lack of a better word... "lacking in common sense".
You assume that all the barbarian does is attacking with no skill and that's it. That's an assumption wrong at its core.
And the whole "monk would just catch all the axes and daggers" thing... I don't even know where to start.
I've been training in martial arts for 15 years now, AND I've seen many shaolin demonstrations, both live and on TV, and never ever ever EVER have I seen "catch the axe" technique.
When somebody throws an axe at you, you dodge. You don't try to catch it with your bare hands (or as you would probably envision it... with your teeth, just for the badassery of it).
And another thing - you know who the bo (staff as you call it) is good against? Unarmored opponents. You know... those who... have no armor (not death knights for example).
You know why there was never an army full of people with staves? Cause people wear armor to battle. (Again the death knights example)
Also, and that's a very very big disatvantage of the staff, it BREAKS after a hard strike to a hard surface (for example, head of an opponent). There was this dude called Newton who came up with this idea that any force you apply returns at the same amount of force in the opposite direction. Bad bad news for the staff.
Sure, it'll take the opponent out as well, but when you fight a swarm of demons taking out one and staying with a broken half weapon is not an optimal situation.
There are so many other holes in your theories I'd keep on trying to correct them, but I'll just leave this whole axe catching staff wielding barbarian slaying with no effort monk to you.
If you ever in real life try to fight with a staff against a sword (yeah, I have done that, stupid weapon training in martial arts... who fights with swords these days?) I'd like to hear your opinions on how the staff is the most versatile weapon, as you say.
P.S.
Oh... also... a staff is completely useless in close quarter combat. Almost forgot about that part. If you have a staff and someone closes in on you and grabs you - you might as well throw that thing away and begin a wrestling match.
Almost forgot about this one.
0
Dude... if you think you beat things into "submission" with axes, you've never seen an axe.
Trust me, while you'd be looking for that pressure point with a staff, somebody else will just bash you with an axe and be done with it.
Also, the barbarian in the diablo universe is no mindless brute.
He's a weapon master, one of the best meelee fighters in the diablo universe.
Bah... why do I even explain that to you? Stay with the staff idea... whatever makes you happy.
0
Shaolin monks main purpose was to fight evil and protect the innocent?
Dude... you've been watching too many movies.
Read up on history.
0
I just want to say that if you beat something for 37 minutes with two axes, no way you take it down with a few well placed attacks with *your* staff.
Ofcourse this whole monk/barbarian issue is a matter of taste, but elevating your idea by diminishing the other is just dumb.
0
Also - both WoW and D3 have inventory.
This shall not pass! It's totally lame that characters in D3 wear armor and use weapons just as characters in WoW do.
Remove inventory in D3 at once or I shall declare this game to be total fail!!!1 Ze fail I tell you, ze fail!
I r ze original thinker, fear me cry...
(Just adding to the sarcasm of the previous poster, I liked it
0
Maybe if you'd be nicer to people, they'd give you decent replies.
But you're not.
So I'd like to personally tell you this - you're wrong. No, I won't tell you why.
Also, you're a troll.
I'd add some more nicknames but, insulting people is against this forums policy. Who knows... maybe in your case they'd make an exception.
0
Thing is - Inarius did not create Sanctuary. Inarius AND Lilith made Sanctuary (together with a bunch of other demons and angels).
And they both wanted to escape the war. In fact, it is written that when Inarius approached the band of demons with whom he created Sanctuary he was surprised to see how like minded they were.
Then angels and demons fell in love, did the deed, and that's how baby humans were born.
However when they saw what they created was more powerful than them Inarius wanted to destroy them and Lilith wanted to use them.
I honestly think angels and demons in the diablo universe deserve each other
0
I r fanboi lol!
(Don't ban me... the guy asked for it in his post
0
Allrighty -
"YOU SHALL NOT TAKE FROM ME SANCTUARY, Inarius reprimanded her memory. I WILL NOT LET YOU AGAIN DESTROY MY DREAM! SANCTUARY AND ALL IT CONTAINS WILL NOT BE YOURS, EVEN IF I MUST DESTROY IT MYSELF...AS IS MY RIGHT...
This is a direct copy/paste from the sin war trilogy. This is Inarius talking to himself in front of the mirror, imagining he is talking to Lilith.
Now tell me the truth, does that like the good guy to you?