Poll: PETA declares furs heresy

Recommended Videos

Namehere

Forum Title
May 6, 2012
200
0
0
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Namehere said:
Horses have seldom been the property of those who ride them. European armies are not the wild west. A mounted knight travels with a retinue. That retinue is mounted. Cavalry ride the Crown's horses, not their own. In many periods many men rode other men's horses. Fought wars started by other men. Squires were often mounted and never owned their own mounts. You've got to keep up with the army after all. And squires were never worth a damn for ransom. There is no denying the value of a captured war horse, especially when you're own mounted forces had lost mounts in battle. Horses are ridden after all. Have rider will war. What good is a prisoner I must feed and might never ransom back, compared to a horse I can use with the dawn?
Yeah, no. Even dating back to the Romans you were expected to provide your own kit. Hence why Roman cavalry only made up 8% of the active units in a battlegroup and all of them were patricii. Horses were expensive, a properly trained horse who wouldn't just throw off its rider even more so. Hence why they were considered kind of garbage because a lifestyle of eating cheese and olives while lounging in courtyard gardens isn't exsctly conducive to breeding the violent tendencies born of hardship anf the idea that war is the only means to make a living and increase a family's holdings. There's stories of men at arms in the Medieval era who brought dozens of coursers and destriers given it was the beginning of a campaign. Basically with the idea that most of them would die on multiple battlefields. The Confederates during the American Civil War expected their riders to bring their own horses, as well.

Bedouin and Barbary raiders owned their own horses, too.

Which sounds dumb but at least guaranteed those who had them at least knew how to ride them and properly take care of them on the march. The Great War is one of the few conflicts where light horses were wholesale provided to soldiers such as Australian Imperial Forces. And that's because enlistment rates would have fallen sharply if professional "six bob a day tourists" (high compare to other Commonwealth payments) were suddenly expected to have to provide stabling and feed.
Rome bares no relation to the armies of Europe. If it did they'd have utilised more infantry tactics and less cavalry. The Roman 'cavalry' were 'auxiliary' troops, graduates of the armed forces generally given land and levied when the army was operational around them. They were free men, Romans, who were temporarily brought back into active service and veteran forces. This was very different from European armies. For instance, are you a knight of the Catholic church? Whose horse do you think that Knight rode? Can you say, the Pope's? So no, you can not compare the Roman Empire's military structures to those of Europe. Even today there can be little comparison. One doesn't have to buy their weapons and vehicles in the modern forces and one wasn't usually expected to in the past.
 

Groxnax

New member
Apr 16, 2009
563
0
0
Man, those guys at PETA better stop taking drugs or they are...

Wait they are sane?

That is just plain stupid.

*shakes head*
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
An they wonder why people never takes them seriously anymore. Guess we can add this to the list of retarded things for them to moan about instead of real animals.

1. Killing dogs in Modern Warfare.
2. Killing warus in World of Warcraft.
3. Marios fur suit thing.
4. Fur on plastic figures.
 

Goliath100

New member
Sep 29, 2009
437
0
0
You wrote PETA (they kill dogs) wrong. It's not "PETA", it's "PETA (they kill dogs)". Never forget that.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Namehere said:
Rome bares no relation to the armies of Europe. If it did they'd have utilised more infantry tactics and less cavalry. The Roman 'cavalry' were 'auxiliary' troops, graduates of the armed forces generally given land and levied when the army was operational around them. They were free men, Romans, who were temporarily brought back into active service and veteran forces. This was very different from European armies. For instance, are you a knight of the Catholic church? Whose horse do you think that Knight rode? Can you say, the Pope's? So no, you can not compare the Roman Empire's military structures to those of Europe. Even today there can be little comparison. One doesn't have to buy their weapons and vehicles in the modern forces and one wasn't usually expected to in the past.
I'm not. I'm saying even as far back as Rome. The fact of the matter is if you were wealthy enough to bring a horse with you on campaign, you were liable to bring a few, and that was what was expected. I don't doubt a lord might throw in a few coursers to their retinue, or bring additional horses on campaign and end up doling them out when needed ... but there was no active horseshare fund if you were a cavalier.
 

Pseudonym

Regular Member
Legacy
Feb 26, 2014
802
8
13
Country
Nederland
I never really got PETA. I only ever hear from them when they pull some silly stunt like this. At the very least they sure have a weird way of promoting themselves and their causes. It gets attention but I'm unsure of whether it gets results. Fictional fur also just doesn't seem particularly important to me even if I did think actual fur was such a bad thing, which I don't.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
So apparently there's not enough legitimate animal rights causes they could be pursuing because they have to go after fictional characters instead.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
Canadamus Prime said:
So apparently there's not enough legitimate animal rights causes they could be pursuing because they have to go after fictional characters instead.
Yeah, right? Puppy mills, cat horders, mistreating circuses, fucking sea world/zoos, illegal poaching!
But no, the Wolf Guard of Russ wearing plastic wolf pelts taken from the imaginary wolves of the ice world Fenris are the problem.
 

Smithnikov_v1legacy

New member
May 7, 2016
1,020
1
0
Well running dry on attention getting there, PETA? I mean, this is pretty niche stuff to go after. I mean, I COULD go on about of all the things to get outraged about regarding a setting who's main protagonist is a xenophobic, genocidal theocracy that treats it's citizens worse than trash and actively looks for excuses to kill them en masse is what their neutered super-soldiers wear on their shoulders..but why bother.
 

Tanis

The Last Albino
Aug 30, 2010
5,264
0
0
PETA is like Scientology.

It's run by nut jobs who are only around thanks to brainless celebs.
 

sageoftruth

New member
Jan 29, 2010
3,417
0
0
Judging from the article, it looks like they're not standing up for the rights of nonexistent animals, but rather that they're afraid Warhammer fans will start buying furs to match the look of their heroes. A pretty naive assumption, unless we're talking about VERY serious cosplayers, but far less stupid than trying to protect the rights of fictional animals.
 

sageoftruth

New member
Jan 29, 2010
3,417
0
0
SmugFrog said:
Metalix Knightmare said:
JoJo said:
Pointless symbolism. Next they'll be complaining about Super Mario because he has a habit of jumping on turtles' backs. Won't anyone think of the poor innocent goombas?
They already threw bitchfits over the animal suits.
Indeed they did, forcing Mario to release a statement back to PETA:

Normally, I find Dokrly's overabundance of characters talking to cheapen the humor in their videos, but in this case, I think it fit perfectly.
 

Jamash

Top Todger
Jun 25, 2008
3,638
0
0
When I first read the headline, I thought PETA were going after Games Workshop for the sable fur that they use in their paintbrushes, but no, apparently fictional fur from fictional animals made out of plastic is more important than real fur made from real animals which are farmed and killed so that people can paint immoral plastic fur in greater detail.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
Caramel Frappe said:
So the same people who kill dogs by stuffing them in freezers due to being mixed breeds ... are asking a gaming company to stop creating virtual fur coats because it's against humanity / life itself? ...... Yeah, i'm never going to take them seriously, ever.
They really do that?
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
Caramel Frappe said:
Oh for fucks sake! At least a Space Wolf gives the Fenrisian Wolf a fighting chance! And I doubt Russ cared if a tundra wolf fucked a timber wolf.

Fucking PETA. Puppy Mill for the rich and famous, eh?
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
2,109
879
118
Namehere said:
Rome bares no relation to the armies of Europe. If it did they'd have utilised more infantry tactics and less cavalry. The Roman 'cavalry' were 'auxiliary' troops, graduates of the armed forces generally given land and levied when the army was operational around them. They were free men, Romans, who were temporarily brought back into active service and veteran forces. This was very different from European armies. For instance, are you a knight of the Catholic church? Whose horse do you think that Knight rode? Can you say, the Pope's? So no, you can not compare the Roman Empire's military structures to those of Europe. Even today there can be little comparison. One doesn't have to buy their weapons and vehicles in the modern forces and one wasn't usually expected to in the past.
Rome certainly counts. You didn't specify a time period. And while they tended to use auxiliaries as cavalry because their own was weak, the auxiliaries had also to provide their own horses.

And later knights had to provide their own horses. Maybe they also provided horses for their lance, but as those were most often foot soldiers anyway and a knight with a warhorse, a ridig horse, a pack animal and maybe a reserve horse, two squires, two archers and two speermen would certainly be one of the stronger setups. On the weak end you had one knight with horse and two footmen including qsuires. A quite common configuration had one additional light rider per knight, the rest footmen. So yes, it is save to say, that in times when knights were important, people usually used their own horses.

This became actually less common, when the big mercenary cavalry units came up.


Personal property and knightly orders where members had to "give up all properties" are kind of a special case. But in practice those still used their own horses. Either per special rule allowing to own horses, weapons and armor or by practice of gifting the horse you would use to the order. And no, the riches and land of the order is not really property of the pope.


And if we actually leave the knights behind and include eastern Europe and all those nomadic and seminomadic people who were actually famous and feared for their cavalry, those riders also owned their own horses.
 

sageoftruth

New member
Jan 29, 2010
3,417
0
0
I have to admit, I'm kind of disappointed we don't see any comments from the two who said "Yes" in the poll. I mean, I can't blame them for wanting to keep silent. The overall sentiment we all have towards this event and PETA in general is pretty clear, but I don't often get to hear from people who would say "yes" to removing furs from games or fiction.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
https://twitter.com/thetowerofstars/status/826052983565799424

Response from Matt Ward (sigh) who apparently is back working for GW (SIGH).