|
Squalid posted:I have another question about Sengoku Japan, why were they so poo poo at making cannons? They had plenty of exposure to Korean and European guns but never managed to make their own. It doesn't seem like casting a cannon should be much different than casting a bell and I know they could do that. So what gives? What was the technological edge that allowed Koreans to make Swiss Cheese out of Japanese warships? To start off, this is not true. The Japanese did manage to make their own cannon, however, they did not use it as much as Europeans in warfare. When it comes to the difference between Koreans and Japanese, keep in mind that Korea was a small country (or countries, most of the time) where sea trade was essential to the economy. Like an Asian version of Phoenicians, if you will. They had centuries of naval tradition, and knew poo poo About Ships. Japan, on the other hand, conducted far less active sea trade and naval warfare. At the end of the 16th century their armies were top notch, but most part of the country had very little naval tradition, especially when it came to naval warfare. During the invasions of Korea, their land armies generally dealt relatively easily with the Korean armies, while the Korean navy did the same to the Japanese navy. They were specialized in different things, but it turned out that being specialized in naval warfare is a good thing if you want to conduct warfare across the sea. However, the Japanese gunpowder weapons were generally superior to the Korean and Chinese during the invasions, and they had better developed tactics for gunpowder use. So the Koreans did not have better gunpowder weapons, but they had ships that utilized what cannon they had, while the Japanese didn't. EDIT: Korea and China did produce more siege cannon, and the technology spread to Japan relatively late (early 16th century). However, the Japanese handguns were generally more effective than their mainland contemporaries, and the Japanese armies had better drill and tactics for handguns. Many of the Korean fortifications fell during the invasions to fierce attacks with handguns, rather than siege cannon. Both side did use siege cannon though. The emphasis on handguns in Japanese armies went so far during the invasions of Korea that commanders sent back orders to the mainland that all reinforcements should be armed with handguns: those carrying spears and bows could just as well stay home. That handguns became so prevalent is usually a big surprise to those who believe the common myth that samurai in some way had a distain for gunpowder weaponry. Quite the opposite. Cannon were also used both for attacking and defending castles in Japan in the 16th and early 17th century, including Oda Nobunaga's naval bombardment at the siege of Nagashima in 1574. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Jan 24, 2013 |
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
I'm glad we're on the next page, those pics killed awful betamax (back to 56k: here be dragons it is).
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:25
|
|
wdarkk posted:I imagine bells have much looser tolerances for basically all parameters of metal strength than a gun does, so the quality of the material isn't as much of an issue. Bingo. Even if you have the materiel to make it, you'll need artisan techniques to ensure it doesn't blow up in your face when you first fire it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
A large part of the The Satsuma domain however did conquer the Ryuku kingdom, which becomes pretty important after 1635.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Squalid posted:But aren't most cannons in the period cast from bronze? Of course that might be even more expensive for the Japanese to acquire. Yeah just googling around I found this map of ancient sources of tin: The source I'm reading says that Chinese/Korean cannons were made from iron not bronze. Another reason why the Japanese cannons weren't as good is because theyre not as useful in Japans mountainous terrain. It's a lot easier to march around with a musket than it is to haul these ridiculousy heavy cannons and carriages around the interior. Japanese cannons were like 100 years behind China Korea but with muskets (arquebus if you want to get technical) the situation was reversed. Koesj posted:I'm glad we're on the next page, those pics killed awful betamax (back to 56k: here be dragons it is). Gack! Sorry. I even thumbnailed them. I'll be more selective next time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
what was RAF fighter command doing post 1942? Most German planes had been moved to the eastern front and they were not in the business of bomber escort.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:what was RAF fighter command doing post 1942? Most German planes had been moved to the eastern front and they were not in the business of bomber escort. They did do bomber escort. But mostly CAS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
I'm sure they diverted some resources to the other fronts when they could as well as the war in the Atlantic too.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
I'm surprised to here that LUMMOX since Yellow class cannon you posted has a distinctly green tint to it. That could just be explained by the few bronze guns that were produced being more likely to survive 400 years intact. Not that this matters at all. It also might just be bad lighting in the photograph. Looking around it seems iron can produce green rust under some circumstances, which might have distorted my view of what old guns hauled up from the sea bed are made from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm surprised to here that LUMMOX since Yellow class cannon you posted has a distinctly green tint to it. That could just be explained by the few bronze guns that were produced being more likely to survive 400 years intact. Not that this matters at all. It also might just be bad lighting in the photograph. No you're right. I made a mistake. There were bronze cannons as well as iron cannons. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
How big is that cannon in the picture, anyway? Is that a 1-inch bore? 3-inch? edit: I mean this cannon. THE LUMMOX posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:Hey, what up. Crossposting from the comment I made in the "Citadel" thread in GBS. These books all deal with early modern Western Europe, my focus: Thanks, I will look into these. I am an artilleryman so I try to actively learn as much as I can about the history of it
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 09:40
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:what was RAF fighter command doing post 1942? Most German planes had been moved to the eastern front and they were not in the business of bomber escort. They took Rommel out of the war just as he was about to launch a coup against Hitler, so there's that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:They took Rommel out of the war just as he was about to launch a coup against Hitler, so there's that. Could you elaborate on that note?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
bumblingbee posted:Could you elaborate on that note? According the Anthony Beevor's Normandy which I am reading now, Rommel had already concluded with a number of other officers on the Western front that the war was lost and that the only way out was to depose Hitler and conclude a separate peace with the Western allies. He had sounded out many of the commanders in the west and gained their support, with the idea that Rommel himself would be the only person that can lead the Army after Hitler is deposed. This is a separate but parallel plot with that other one carried out by Tom Cruise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:According the Anthony Beevor's Normandy which I am reading now, Rommel had already concluded with a number of other officers on the Western front that the war was lost and that the only way out was to depose Hitler and conclude a separate peace with the Western allies. He had sounded out many of the commanders in the west and gained their support, with the idea that Rommel himself would be the only person that can lead the Army after Hitler is deposed. This is a separate but parallel plot with that other one carried out by Tom Cruise. But how was the RAF involved in all this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:How big is that cannon in the picture, anyway? Is that a 1-inch bore? 3-inch? Somewhere inbetween? Closer to 3 than 1. Sorry I know thats a non-answer. The only specific measurement I have for it is that it was just under a metre long. You can see the projectiles in the picture, they were smaller than a baseball. The info placard at the museum didn't give any measurements. Also, the main book I'm using has lots of measurements for Chinese and Japanese cannon but not much for the Korean ones. Right now I'm trying to decide if I want to spend tomorrow reading The Book of Corrections or schlepp on down to the War Memorial and take better notes about Yi Sunshins ceremonial swords. If I end up at the War Memorial I'll measure the cannons because it's driving me nuts I can't find better data in secondary sources.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:According the Anthony Beevor's Normandy which I am reading now, Rommel had already concluded with a number of other officers on the Western front that the war was lost and that the only way out was to depose Hitler and conclude a separate peace with the Western allies. He had sounded out many of the commanders in the west and gained their support, with the idea that Rommel himself would be the only person that can lead the Army after Hitler is deposed. This is a separate but parallel plot with that other one carried out by Tom Cruise. That's a gross misrepresentation of what Beevor writes and so misleading as to be essentially untrue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
bumblingbee posted:But how was the RAF involved in all this? The RAF strafed his car I believe. \/ I think they were just strafing everything that moved in the daytime in Normandy. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Jan 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:The RAF strafed his car I believe. Obviously they wanted Hitler in charge more than they wanted Rommel, so there was a conspiracy to have Rommel killed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Obviously they wanted Hitler in charge more than they wanted Rommel, so there was a conspiracy to have Rommel killed. They canceled a mission to assassinate Hitler because they wanted him loving things up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:According the Anthony Beevor's Normandy which I am reading now, Rommel had already concluded with a number of other officers on the Western front that the war was lost and that the only way out was to depose Hitler and conclude a separate peace with the Western allies. He had sounded out many of the commanders in the west and gained their support, with the idea that Rommel himself would be the only person that can lead the Army after Hitler is deposed. This is a separate but parallel plot with that other one carried out by Tom Cruise. My understanding from "The Longest Day" was that the officer's plot approached Rommel and said, "Hey, we're gonna kill Hitler, you want in?" And he was basically "No, but you go for it." Hitler, naturally, wasn't too happy about Rommel's failure to narc on the plotters and suspected him of more, so... Cornelius Ryan said that Rommel's aides were really loyal to him and after the war, tried to protect his repuatation as much as possible; so stories like "he was totes gonna overthrow Hitler" and "he saw D-Day coming" are probably the result of their exaggerations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
sullat posted:and "he saw D-Day coming" are probably the result of their exaggerations. Do they say he basically knew the exact date it was going to happen, or just in general? Because if it's in general, I have to think just about every German general could make a good assumption that the allies were going to try to a landing sometime during the warm months of 1944.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Do they say he basically knew the exact date it was going to happen, or just in general? Because if it's in general, I have to think just about every German general could make a good assumption that the allies were going to try to a landing sometime during the warm months of 1944. Also phases of the moon were not a lost science to Nazi Germany, they knew very well when the windows for an Allied landing were. The main problem for the Germans was that they knew they'd only get one shot to commit their strategic reserves and couldn't afford to fall for a feint.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Do they say he basically knew the exact date it was going to happen, or just in general? Because if it's in general, I have to think just about every German general could make a good assumption that the allies were going to try to a landing sometime during the warm months of 1944. Rommel fired off about half a dozen predictions of the specific date; one of them happened to be right, but given that on June 5th-7th he scheduled training exercises for the officers and then left the front to visit his wife, when the time came he was banking on the wrong prediction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:Thanks, I will look into these. I am an artilleryman so I try to actively learn as much as I can about the history of it Since making the post you quoted, I finished Duffy's book, and it is so great. I learned a lot and it was wonderful, so that comes highly recommended. Watch out for typos in the technical passages, though. I bet his editor just didn't understand what he was talking about. Incidentally, your counterparts in a sixteenth-century army would have regarded themselves as a quasi-religious order and their technology as holy mysteries. They wore richer clothes than the rest of the army, but all black, increasing their air of sophistication and menace, and heads of state flattered them shamelessly in letters and dispatches. It's like the Manhattan Project, if everyone had one, nobody cared about keeping it secret, and the physicists traveled from country to country as the job hunt led them. Or, since artillery and fortifications were among the most expensive state projects and it was important that this was public, a cross between the Manhattan Project and an opera house. Also, they all smoked. Most period illustrations of artillerymen I've seen show at least one of them with a lit pipe in his mouth, next to the guns and ammunition and sacks of gunpowder just sort of hanging out. But this was the time when you fired salutes with shotted weapons too. Edit: On that note, have some gun safety!  Excerpt from A briefe discourse of the most haynous and traytorlike fact of Thomas Appeltree for which hee shoulde haue suffred death on Tuisday the one andtwentith of Iulie last: wherin is set downe his confession. Whereunto is annexed, the report of the message sent to the place of execution from hir most excellent Maiestie, by the right honourable Sir Christopher Hatton Knight, vizchaberlain to hir highnesse, 1579 On the 17th July 1579 the queen was in her ‘privie barge’ on the river between Greenwich and Deptford, and with her the French Ambassador, Jean de Simier, the Earl of Lincoln, and her Vice Chamberlain, Christopher Hatton. quote:it chaunced that one Thomas Appeltree a yong man and servant to M. Henrie Carie, with ii or iii children of her Majesties Chappel, & one other named Barnard Acton, being in a boate on the Thames, rowing up & down betwixt the places aforenamed, the aforesaid Thomas Appeltree had a Caliver or Harquebush, which he had three or foure times discharged with bullet, shooting at random verie rashly, who by great misfortune shot one of the watermen (being the second man next unto the bales of the said Barge, labouring with his Oare, which sate within six foot of hir highnesse) cleane through both of his armes: the blow was so great and grievous, that it moved him out of his place, and forced him to crie and scritche out piteously, supposing himself to be slaine, and saying he was shot through the body. The man bleedin abundantly, as though he had had a hundred daggers thrust into him, the Queenes Majesty shewed such noble courage as is most wonderfull to be hearde and spoken of, for beholding hym so maimed, and bleeding in suche sorte, she never bashed thereat, but shewed effectually a prudent and magnanimous heart, & most courteously comforting the poore man, she bad him be of good cheare, and sayd he should want nothing that might be for his ease, commanding him to be covered till such time as he came to the shore, til which time he lay bathing in his own bloud, which might have bene an occasion to have terrified the eies of the beholders. But such and so great was the courage and magnanimitie of our dread and soveraigne Ladie, that it never quailed. Appeltree and his companions were apprehended and sentenced to death, but granted clemency at the last moment. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
THE LUMMOX posted:Somewhere inbetween? Closer to 3 than 1. Sorry I know thats a non-answer. The only specific measurement I have for it is that it was just under a metre long. You can see the projectiles in the picture, they were smaller than a baseball. The info placard at the museum didn't give any measurements. Also, the main book I'm using has lots of measurements for Chinese and Japanese cannon but not much for the Korean ones. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:
Seriously, it can not be overstated how much of an impact artillery and fortification made on Early Modern European history. These things were so drat expensive that they pretty much brought the modern state into existence just to pay for them. More precisely, Early Modern Europe sees the rise of direct taxation and a dedicated bureaucracy to support it. In Germany you have endless descriptions of the economic situation of every single subject in a territory ("He has a horse and ten acres of land, but the horse is lame and the fields are poor, but he also has five chickens which lay a number of eggs; he further works as a weaver, but prices have fallen and he has not earned much" and so on, for the entire village)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Wasn't having cannons a status symbol as well? That having a lot of cannons showed your subjects and rivals that you were a powerful ruler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Seriously, it can not be overstated how much of an impact artillery and fortification made on Early Modern European history. These things were so drat expensive that they pretty much brought the modern state into existence just to pay for them. More precisely, Early Modern Europe sees the rise of direct taxation and a dedicated bureaucracy to support it. In Germany you have endless descriptions of the economic situation of every single subject in a territory ("He has a horse and ten acres of land, but the horse is lame and the fields are poor, but he also has five chickens which lay a number of eggs; he further works as a weaver, but prices have fallen and he has not earned much" and so on, for the entire village) Don't forget the cost of actually raising and supporting an army large enough to lay seige (and later, to defend itself from a relief army).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
From what I recall, significant parts of the Low Countries are below the water table which makes the construction of subterranean bunker complexes very difficult and even more colossally expensive then the rest of the line had been. In a sense, the maginot line succeeded in it it's original purpose in forcing future battles to occur outside Metropolitan France, it just that the allies were immediately outflanked and their position rendered untenable. I suppose that isn't much of an endorsement either. All of this thirty years war chat has been fortuitous for me as I've recently become interested in this time period as well as the preceding century and a half or so. It seems like a rather neglected field, at least in English,, although Europe's Tragedy and Wedgewood's book are both outstanding, and Geoffeory Parker's books are also excellent. I found Wilson's depiction of Gustavus Adolphus as an opportunistic warlord looking to carve out his own empire and/or usurp the imperial crown to be a pretty strong contrast to the usual hagiographic depictions of him; I was wondering if some of our posters more familiar with the time period had some thoughts on this? I finished The Spanish Road and am currently working on The Grand Strategy of Phillip II , and I would certainly recommend both. The general conclusion seems to be so far that Phil was a smart guy but too much of a micromanager who let his religious views and proto-jingoistic pride/machismo dictate his actions a bit more than they should have, getting him dragged into more wars than the Castilian economy and stagnant population could sustain. I'm very interested in learning more about the Dutch revolt as well as the Italian Wars of the 15th century as they both seem pretty inextricably tied into the Franco-Habsburg rivalry and therefore the thirty years war as a whole, so any book recommendations on these areas or 15-17th century warfare would definitely be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Here's why I asked about nuclear battleships earlier:
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 19:46
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Wasn't having cannons a status symbol as well? That having a lot of cannons showed your subjects and rivals that you were a powerful ruler. It was yes. Don't be dumb and put them all together at once on a single boat. It never ends well.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
DeceasedHorse posted:From what I recall, significant parts of the Low Countries are below the water table which makes the construction of subterranean bunker complexes very difficult and even more colossally expensive then the rest of the line had been. Your recollection in inaccurate. Indeed, parts of the Western Netherlands are wholly unsuitable for large scale earthen fortifications but that has been historically solved by multiple defensive lines based on inundation. Moreover, the Rhine/IJssel estuary provides multiple natural barriers where invading forces from the east could have been stopped at. Barging into Flanders through Limburg and Brabant would only have entailed crossing the Meuse which sits on the Dutch/German border and the neutral Netherlands had no incentive to prioritize that kind of strategy instead of trying to protect their own economic heartland to the Northwest (wholly perpendicular to the German axis of advance).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
DeceasedHorse posted:I found Wilson's depiction of Gustavus Adolphus as an opportunistic warlord looking to carve out his own empire and/or usurp the imperial crown to be a pretty strong contrast to the usual hagiographic depictions of him; I was wondering if some of our posters more familiar with the time period had some thoughts on this? quote:I finished The Spanish Road and am currently working on The Grand Strategy of Phillip II , and I would certainly recommend both. The general conclusion seems to be so far that Phil was a smart guy but too much of a micromanager who let his religious views and proto-jingoistic pride/machismo dictate his actions a bit more than they should have, getting him dragged into more wars than the Castilian economy and stagnant population could sustain. Philip II posted:These things can only make me sorrowful and exhaust me; and thus you must believe me when I say that I have become so tired by them, and by what is happening in this world, that if it were not for [things]...that cannot be set aside, I do not know what I would do with myself...Certainly, I cannot cope with this modern world, and I realize that I should be in some other situation in life less exalted than the one that God has bestowed upon me, which torments me so. On the other hand, whenever I read something about Spain in this period I am struck, again and again, with how on top of things they seem. The documents in Philip II's files are marked with the date each is received, for instance, and the training/garrison system they have set up in Italy (detailed in Army of Flanders) is a thing of beauty. The German states are not nearly as good at getting poo poo done from a bureaucratic point of view. In my opinion, the portrayal of Spain as "backward," "stagnant," "doomed to fail," etc., in addition to being teleological, is way too onesided and does not address the areas in which Spain did get things right. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:Speaking of sadbrains, Rudolf II eventually just checked out of ruling all together, holing himself up in Hradzsin and sperging out over his various interests while things went to poo poo around him. We know that he valued religious freedom, so if he had had a little more spine, we might not have had a Thirty Years' War. Rudolf's "favouring" of religious freedom was result of his giant incompetence. Don't forget that under his supervision, various members of his family carried out massive anti-Protestant campaigns throughout Austria. He personally spent quite some time scheming against the Protestant faction in Bohemia (despite the fact they were virtually his last remaining allies at the time!) just so he wouldn't have to grant them greater privileges than his father did. He only gave them his famous Majestate because his brother Matthias and rebellious Hungarians + Moravians were marching towards Prague in a bid to seize the crown, and he needed to gather an army. Even then, the freedoms he granted were very flimsy, and actually were - due to their unbalanced nature and certain ambiguity - the direct reason for the beginning of the 30years war, as became apparent during the rule of Matthias and his prodigy Ferdinand! Anyway, Rudolf then regretted the Majestate greatly and conspired with the bishop of Passau to join their forces against the Protestants and Matthias. However, his plans backfired when the ambitious Bishop Leopold decided to go ahead and assault Prague: The idea was to relieve Rudolf - who was losing his cold war against his own noble subjects - and force the assertive Bohemian nobility to recognize Imperial authority. So Leopold arrived and as he was rounding up people and forcing them to pledge loyalty to the Emperor, Rudolf - now completely without any control over anything and a civil war going on - was despairing and ultimately realized that he had no other option but to let his brother take over and sort everything out. And so ended his rule, his greatest legacy being a half-assed religious settlement which satisfied no one and caused numerous grievances with catastrophic results.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Rudolf's "favouring" of religious freedom was result of his giant incompetence. ...And so ended his rule, his greatest legacy being a half-assed religious settlement which satisfied no one and caused numerous grievances with catastrophic results.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:It's difficult to tell, given the strong emotions here. Protestant historians laud him as the ~*savior of Protestantism*~ while a lot of non-Protestant Germans are pissed off at the invasion. I can tell you, however, that while Gustavus Adolphus may have been trying to gain an empire for himself, in my opinion he had no intention of usurping the Empire. Perhaps you are thinking of Wallenstein, of whom this was rumored? (I don't think it was true there, either, but the allegation is longstanding.) Yes, I was in fact thinking of wallet stein, good catch. He's also a pretty fascinating character as well. Speaking of his possible usurpation, I am struck by just how out of it he was at the time; I'm wondering if all of his horrible medical problems may have contributed more to his erratic behavior than his (certainly existent) perosnal ambition. In that note and speaking of sadbrsins, ive always thought it would be interesting to try and analyze historical figures through a psychological and psychiatric lense, although I suppose this would be really speculative at best and probably only really even close to approaching quasi reliable for more contemporary figures and possibly straying into the gay black hitler line of thinking. Oh well. The house of Austria certainly had their mental issues ; Franz Josef was definitely depressed after his wife was assinated and he was hardly the cheery sort even before that, although its kind of hard to blame him considering that he presided over the more or less terminal decline of his families empire for 60 odd years. If I recall correctly Josef II and Francis II were also pretty screwed up emotionally, Maria Theresa went nutso when Francis died and spent the rest of her reign in mourning, and we all know about how screwed up Charles V was , emotionally and physically. The habsburgs never seemed to have any fun with the whole power thing really. I guess the lesson to take from this is to try and stay away from incest? I completely agree with you about Spain; they fought practically continuous wars for like a century on multiple fronts at a time before cracking which is not an unimpressive performance by any standard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
DeceasedHorse posted:Yes, I was in fact thinking of wallet stein, good catch. He's also a pretty fascinating character as well. Speaking of his possible usurpation, I am struck by just how out of it he was at the time; I'm wondering if all of his horrible medical problems may have contributed more to his erratic behavior than his (certainly existent) perosnal ambition. quote:In that note and speaking of sadbrsins, ive always thought it would be interesting to try and analyze historical figures through a psychological and psychiatric lense, although I suppose this would be really speculative at best and probably only really even close to approaching quasi reliable for more contemporary figures and possibly straying into the gay black hitler line of thinking. Oh well. quote:...and we all know about how screwed up Charles V was , emotionally and physically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he was competent, I'm just saying that in his case we seem to see an honestly well-meaning person who was probably not unintelligent just loving destroyed by mental illness (if he actually was depressed), and in addition to the negative consequences for the political situation, it seems like a shame on a personal level. Yes, he was a troubled man, but the aura of progressivism and good intentions that surrounds him just doesn't seem to be true at all, he was a spiteful man who loathed his own policies, and I'd argue he was less understanding of religious issues and need for tolerance than Maxmilian II.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 00:19
|
|