Ask me about Military History!

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask me about Military History!

«‹›372 »

Mustang: Jun 18, 2006; “We don’t really know where this goes — and I’m not sure we really care.”

Mans posted:

Military History Thread II: Ceasar crosses the Fulda Gap

I vote for this one as well. Funniest thus far, and relevant.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 03:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 5, 2024 22:57

vuk83: Oct 9, 2012

Second Heer be dragoons

# ? Nov 13, 2013 04:48

Shade2142: Oct 10, 2012; Rollin'

Military History Thread: Caesar crosses the Fuldagrad. There be Dragoons. Wotjek kills everyone. The End.

Shade2142 fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Nov 13, 2013

# ? Nov 13, 2013 05:00

VanSandman: Feb 16, 2011; SWAP.AVI EXCHANGER

Hannibal at the Gates of Stalingrad

# ? Nov 13, 2013 05:01

OctaviusBeaver: Apr 30, 2009; Say what now?

Delenda est Wotjek

# ? Nov 13, 2013 05:35

Hogge Wild: Aug 21, 2012; by FactsAreUseless; Pillbug

Nenonen posted:

Military History Thread 2: Here Be Dragoons

It's clearly this.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 05:54

Rodrigo Diaz: Apr 16, 2007; Knights who are at the wars eat their bread in sorrow;
their ease is weariness and sweat;
they have one good day after many bad

steinrokkan posted:

Why should it be called MHT Vol. 2, when this isn't Vol. 1 (Probably not even Vol. 2)? If you are making it to attract new people, perhaps you shouldn't be emphasizing that it's a continuation of an established megathread.

This is a good point. I won't put Mk. 2 or whatever in the title.

Dopilsya posted:

edit- I can't find the new thread, so I guess I'll post here?

The new thread isn't up yet, but the OP is basically ready. Just waiting for one last check-over from my collaborators and then it shall be deployed. Unfortunately two of them are in Europe. Tomorrow.

quote:

The people following Peter the Hermit weren't entirely unwashed masses and I think the research indicates that there was probably more elite involvement that previously thought. For what it's worth, though, while some just hosed off to go a-crusading, IIRC usually there was an official sanction to allow peasantry to take the cross. I'm not sure if lords necessarily got anything from the Church for letting their people go, or if letting their guys massacre the local Jews and invade Muslim territories was just a civic obligation.

Your first point is essentially correct. In addition to Walter Sansavoir's contingent which had few knights but more foot-soldiers, there was also a force of Swabians under the Count Palatine Hugh of T�bingen and Duke Walter of Tengk and other nobles, though it certainly does seem that there was a much more significant noncombatant presence. Riley-Smith acknowledges this, but in that hedging-your-words way that historians do when one has doubts.

quote:

Foraging did happen, but there was also a lot of logistical work going into the Crusades. Food and money would often be donated by people in Europe and was typically supplied by sea, usually by Italian shipping. Bitching about the Italians not coming through with the supplies pops up more than once.

This is only true for later crusades, especially the 3rd and those that follow. The First Crusade was almost entirely supplied on the march, either by trade or by forage.

While by-and-large the crusaders preferred to trade for goods, there were plenty of problems with this. The first wave in particular set off before the Emperor could arrange for passage and markets and the like, but even so it is doubtful if Alexios I could have mustered enough power to both control and feed such a large group well. The surprising timing of the crusaders and the generally limited communication made them sometimes have to resort to foraging because people would assume them to be an army and abandon their towns. Indeed, suspicions about the crusaders, especially the first wave, led to instances like this one related by Albert of Aix:

quote:

Walter [Sansavoir] sought to buy the necessaries of life from a chief of the Bulgarians and the magistrate of the city; but these men, thinking it a pretense, and regarding them as spies, forbade the sale of any thing to them. Wherefore, Walter and his companions, greatly angered, began forcibly to seize and lead away the herds of cattle and sheep, which were wandering h and there through the fields in search of pasture. As a result serious strife arose between the Bulgarians and the pilgrims who were driving away the flocks, and they came to blows. However, while the strength of the Bulgarians was growing even to one hundred and forty, some of the pilgrim army, cut off from the multitude of their companions, arrived in flight at a chapel. But the Bulgarians, their army growing in number, while the band of Walter was weakening and his entire company scattered, besieged the chapel and burned sixty who were within; on most of the others, who escaped from the enemy and the chapel in defense of their lives, the Bulgarians inflicted grave wounds.

To make matters worse, had been a long period of bad harvest in the preceding years. Until the bountiful harvest of 1096 so even without these former problems, oftentimes towns and villages could not have served the crusaders even if they had the inclination.

Kemper Boyd posted:

The only book I got right now at hand is Tuchman's A Distant Mirror which is in general a good read.

Off the top of my head, the most fundamental thing is that when we're talking about feudal European society, we should keep in mind that there was a whole lot of different forms of feudalism around. In broad terms, you can divide it into three major groups by geography: Western European, Southern European and Eastern European. Southern European was in the middle ages the most stable and probably the most oppressive one around, where social mobility was always limited more than in Western European. Eastern european feudalism was the major outlier since feudalism in the east actually got more oppressive as later on.

A lot of this is correct, but your generalisations about Southern Europe do not make much sense to me, especially in the context of Eastern Empire, which was never feudal, and the Spanish countries which, at least in the case of Castile-Leon, could be very socially mobile, being border kingdoms after all.

Additionally, your earlier point about serfs being wealthier than their masters is something I haven't heard, though I have heard it said about tenant peasants and freeholders. Not to say that it's impossible, I'd just like to know the source.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 06:18

Comstar: Apr 20, 2007; Are you happy now?

Military History Vol II: Tank Destroyers defending the Fulda Gap from Polish Bears throwing Nuclear Weapons at Nagasaki.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 09:39

vanity slug: Jul 20, 2010

Oh, I thought it was at Kar�nsebes.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 09:43

Grand Prize Winner: Feb 19, 2007

Post the dang thread already.

:getin:

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

We already had a list, but some of the ones you listed weren't in it so im putting em in. Thanks.

And please remember to credit GoM for remembering the Nazi thread. That one escaped me.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 09:45

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

The new thread isn't up yet, but the OP is basically ready. Just waiting for one last check-over from my collaborators and then it shall be deployed. Unfortunately two of them are in Europe. Tomorrow.

Sorry I was late on this.

Everything looks good from here, I like the changes that you made to the things we talked about, I like Koesj's opinions about stew, and I think we're good to go.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 11:18 on Nov 13, 2013

# ? Nov 13, 2013 11:11

Koesj: Aug 3, 2003

I concur, postpostpost.

e: Here be Dragoons of course!

# ? Nov 13, 2013 11:16

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Since Admiral Snackbar is MIA, can a mod please remember to close this thread when we post the new one? Thanks.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 11:18

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Military History Thread 2: more bickering about the title itt than in any combined command

# ? Nov 13, 2013 11:21

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

Yeah, that was 2 pages of title discussions. Military history nerds are ridiculous in their own way. :v:

# ? Nov 13, 2013 12:08

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

VanSandman posted:

Hannibal at the Gates of Stalingrad

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra

Edit: Hitler and Caesar at Tanagra

# ? Nov 13, 2013 17:36

ArchangeI: Jul 15, 2010

Baloogan posted:

Yeah, that was 2 pages of title discussions. Military history nerds are ridiculous in their own way.

At least there wasn't a discussion what "Military" and what "History" means in this context. Historians love themselves some definition discussions.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 17:48

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

ArchangeI posted:

At least there wasn't a discussion what "Military" and what "History" means in this context. Historians love themselves some definition discussions.

'The history of foreign policy, minus the boring bits'

# ? Nov 13, 2013 17:50

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Can't post for 16 hours!

Alchenar posted:

'The history of foreign policy, minus the boring bits'

This would be an extremely restricted view of military history - not only would it exclude all civil conflicts, but then there's all the economic, social etc. structures that play a major part in wars. For instance, consider what the status of womenfolk would be today without some major wars in which a large share of male workforce was sent to fight and die in the front while war industries required women to take over all those "men's jobs".

So... "The history of politics, minus the polite bits"

# ? Nov 13, 2013 18:12

bewbies: Sep 23, 2003; Fun Shoe

I think I would prefer a catch all history thread personally. Why limit it to just military stuff?

# ? Nov 13, 2013 18:18

Handsome Ralph: Sep 3, 2004; Oh boy, posting!
That's where I'm a Viking!

Mans posted:

Military History Thread II: Ceasar crosses the Fulda Gap

Yeah, this one has my vote as well. :wow:

# ? Nov 13, 2013 18:22

The Merry Marauder: Apr 4, 2009; "But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Nothing says "historians within" like misspelling the thread title.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 18:26

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Can't post for 16 hours!

bewbies posted:

I think I would prefer a catch all history thread personally. Why limit it to just military stuff?

This would be ideal, but wouldn't it be far too wide a topic for coherent discussions? History covers everything that has happened to this day, from your childhood to the invention of sliced bread to War on Drugs to Wojtek the Polish military bear. It's like if there was just one 'Politics Thread' in D&D. Which is why there were some calls for a ~~Hitler~~ History Forum which would nicely bring all history topics together, but we can't have nice things...

# ? Nov 13, 2013 18:28

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

bewbies posted:

I think I would prefer a catch all history thread personally. Why limit it to just military stuff?

Mixing debates about Hittite archeology, evolution of Chinese land allotment systems, and significance of early rifling in one thread would probably just annoy and drive away people coming in for one of these topics but with no interest in the others.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 18:36

Ensign Expendable: Nov 11, 2008; Lager beer is proof that god loves us; Pillbug

steinrokkan posted:

Mixing debates about Hittite archeology, evolution of Chinese land allotment systems, and significance of early rifling in one thread would probably just annoy and drive away people coming in for one of these topics but with no interest in the others.

Yeah, even in this thread, the range of topics is so great, I rarely get to contribute

Speaking of, is it cool if I make a "tanks are more interesting than TANK DESTROYER DOCTRINE" effortpost for the next thread? I promise I'll talk about the interbellum period so I don't cause excess WWII chat.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 18:39

Chamale: Jul 11, 2010; I'm helping!

Ensign Expendable posted:

Yeah, even in this thread, the range of topics is so great, I rarely get to contribute

Speaking of, is it cool if I make a "tanks are more interesting than TANK DESTROYER DOCTRINE" effortpost for the next thread? I promise I'll talk about the interbellum period so I don't cause excess WWII chat.

I'd like this.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 18:44

brozozo: Apr 27, 2007; Conclusion: Dinosaurs.

Ensign Expendable posted:

Yeah, even in this thread, the range of topics is so great, I rarely get to contribute

Speaking of, is it cool if I make a "tanks are more interesting than TANK DESTROYER DOCTRINE" effortpost for the next thread? I promise I'll talk about the interbellum period so I don't cause excess WWII chat.

Please! That sounds like a great effortpost.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 19:33

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Ensign Expendable posted:

Yeah, even in this thread, the range of topics is so great, I rarely get to contribute

Eh, this happens to all of us. From my point of view, everything is frustratingly post-Industrial-revolution-centric.

Godholio posted:

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra

Edit: Hitler and Caesar at Tanagra

Berlin, when the wall fell

# ? Nov 13, 2013 19:37

Rodrigo Diaz: Apr 16, 2007; Knights who are at the wars eat their bread in sorrow;
their ease is weariness and sweat;
they have one good day after many bad