Quote:
Originally Posted by Morthoron
Not wishing to go too off-topic here, but please reread what I said. I stated "She did complete her primary aim, the reversal of France's fortunes in the 100 Year's War and almost single-handedly had Charles VII crowned king of France at Rheims." The 'almost' you are referring to does not mitigate her achievement. She did get Charles crowned king, which was her aim, and she did so 'almost' single-handedly (incredible for a teenage girl of the era).
As far as conferring with Duc de Alençon, yes she did, what of it? She eventually became co-commander of an army with him. She also had many heated arguments with Dunois of Orleans over tactics. Had she not prevailed with her strategy, Dunois was ready to retreat before the taking of les Tournelles and the raising of the siege of Orleans would have failed. She completed in nine days what the French army did not do in five months. Bluntly, the French achieved victory because of her choice of tactics over the established leadership's cautious and defeatist attitudes. The raising of the siege of Orleans marked the turning point in the Hundred Year's War. There are no hypotheticals about it.
As far as 'getting over it', please watch your tone. I would hate to see this thread locked because of unnecessary attitude.
|
Please do not talk to me in such a condescending tone - i actually feel quite annoyed now. Half of the information and debate gathered here is without cause, i havn't commented on Joan of Arc's bad military tactics because i think they were quite excellent - so why would you bring it up like i've disputed it? My only argument against Joan of Arc was that she is given recognition as the sole force that changed the fate of the French Monarchy and decisively won the French victories in the 100 Years War - when in fact she was in no way working alone, she depended on the support of others, being a teenage girl what would you expect?
Actually, alot of the issues concerning Joan of Arc are hypothetically speaking, check your sources again. Because certain things were achieved after her death that she fought for, it does not mean that she alone made it happen.
So i'll beg you again to refrain from the pretentious statements and the argument altogether, i've had my say, as have you - Joan of Arc isn't particularly relevant so i'll carry on with the thread now.
I think it is all very well saying Galadriel could defeat a Balrog by herself, what with the amount of quotations supporting her being the "Greatest" of the Noldor behind Feanor, but whenever a mortal has faced a Balrog, it has been a weapon-in-hand job - Interestingly with Olórin which i now feel compelled to read again, he appears to resume his former shape and do a "power" battle with Durin's Bane. Is it possible to say that Galadriel could equal the Maiar's efforts in power? I'm not sure. I still remain confident that Galadriel would not best a Balrog with a blade, the quotations given just don't define her as a warrior,we have ones of her "greatness" which i believe refer to her mind, and ones of her "athletic ability" and so forth, i could be wrong, but Galadriel only wielded a blade on the odd occasion over the course of thousands of years.
Compare her to Fingolfin, Ecthelion or Glorfindel, each are continuously reputed with their battle skill. Galadriel is in reference to her beauty and mind. I can't see it myself, but their is some evidence there to suggest her military capability, it is just not as clear as with other characters - and so it leads to what we are all doing now, speculating.
Besides, i feel sorry for Celeborn if Galadriel had the power to crush a Balrog :P