|
Flesnolk posted:Götz von Berlichingen's page mentioned a large-scale peasant revolt he fought in, and it had me wondering. Medieval-ish fiction and fantasy portrays such revolts a lot, but were mass, armed uprisings of the peasantry ever really much of a thing in those days? In school I learned the entire 15th century was basicall revolt-city for the peasantry. For some reason there was also a lot of famine in the wake of the many failed upraisings.  One of my school texts claimed the fault lay mostly with Gutenberg: After the printing press was invented, a shitload of bibles were printed and many ignorant peasants started learning to read thanks to the many bibles going around. Cue many peasants suddenly getting angry after they found out many parts of their bibles deviating from what their often drunken and equally ignorant local clergymen were preaching. Remember that part of the bible were you were supposed to always obey your betters, no matter the cost? Turns out that part didn't exist.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:55 |
|
|
Flesnolk posted:Götz von Berlichingen's page mentioned a large-scale peasant revolt he fought in, and it had me wondering. Medieval-ish fiction and fantasy portrays such revolts a lot, but were mass, armed uprisings of the peasantry ever really much of a thing in those days? Yes. Late medieval Europe from the 14th through the 16th centuries experienced an unusually high level of popular unrest relative to other periods. This included a large number of violent uprisings by the lower classes throughout the period. I believe the revolt that Götz von Berlichingen participated in, the German Peasants' War, is supposed to be the largest and most serious of these struggles. The explanation I've usually seen is that conditions had been improving steadily in much of Europe from the 11th through the 13th centuries, but then the continent had an extremely bad 14th century that reversed all the gains and then some. Famines, plagues, and widespread warfare disrupted the economy and lowered quality of life while simultaneously weakening political and religious authorities, who in many cases responded by increasing rather than easing pressure on the lower classes. Hence the civil unrest. Somebody else might have a more detailed understanding, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
I just learned about this: Paul Dolnstein, a bridge builder and Landsknecht active in the early 1500s, kept a diary--really more of a sketchbook, with his running commentary. He drew his comrades and friends.  Some of them are named, like Junker Treusing here  Palteser Stemeß: Laaideeeez...  Else Von Win: "Your haircut sucks, your mustache sucks, and I could give a poo poo about Ron Paul."  Is it possible for anyone to be as cool as we are right now? Didn't think so.  Dolnstein was engaged against the Swedes.  Stab the dude in the face (or: practice stabbing the dude in the face)  Stabbin'  Eat poo poo, armor-havers Edit: Jesus Christ, blood's coming out of the visor, I think.  A battle  I talk a lot about the coming of modern fortifications, but check this stockade out. It is really raw and archaic looking.   Dolnstein's description of the battle of Elfsborg reads as follows: quote:We were 1,800 Germans and we were attacked by 15,000 Swedish farmers. God gave us victory and we struck most of them dead. We were all wearing breast and back plates, skullcaps and arm defenses, and they had crossbows and good pikes made from swords. Afterwards, the King of Denmark knighted us all and did us great honor and paid us well and let us return over the sea in 1503. I, Paul Dolnstein was there and Sir Sigmund List was our Obrist. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:And then everybody stood up and clapped. But seriously, that's an awesome collection of documents. Looks almost like an Osprey in layout, is it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:And that King of Denmark grew up to be.... Edit: And some chick is translating the diary into English for her MA, at least according to the Internet, so we may get to read it in a few years. Edit 2:  that thread's from '07, she's boned. Grad school claims another victim.
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Eat poo poo, armor-havers Mortal Combat, indeed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
I have a question about the German homefront during WWII. What was the domestic reaction when casualties started to mount up in the hundreds of thousands over the first few months in the Soviet Union? Obviously the German populous had been spoiled due to the quick and relatively easy victories over Poland and France, inspiring even people whom may have had reservations about Germany going to war in August 1939 to become full riders on the Hitler bandwagon. But by December 41 the Germans had taken at least half a million casualties. Obviously Goebbels and the Nazi terror-state clamped down hard on any bad news from the front and put their own spin on things but the average German wasn't an imbecile and could see things were starting to go wrong. So in this crucial period, the end of 41 to mid 42 what was the feeling about the war in Germany? Meaning the period before Stalingrad and the subsequent Goebbels rally for the nation to jump on board for total war and a one way ticket on the death-ride express.
Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I have a question about the German homefront during WWII. What was the domestic reaction when casualties started to mount up in the hundreds of thousands over the first few months in the Soviet Union? Obviously the German populous had been spoiled due to the quick and relatively easy victories over Poland and France, inspiring even people whom may have had reservations about Germany going to war in August 1939 to become full riders on the Hitler bandwagon. But by December 41 the Germans had taken at least half a million casualties. Obviously Goebbels and the Nazi terror-state clamped down hard on any bad news from the front and put their own spin on things but the average German wasn't an imbecile and could see things were starting to go wrong. "Everything will be fine, this is a hiccup but the fuhrer will sort things out!" AFAIK
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Global Crisis, by Geoffrey Parker. It just came out! Thanks for the recommendation! Just ordered!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 09:29
|
|
|
Readman posted:Thanks for the recommendation! Just ordered! Edit: Y'all should also read Parker's Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road. Did you know that Spanish regiments would go on strike if they weren't payed on time? It's true. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 11:38
|
|
|
Strike? At least they didn't set fires to the cities, because they were displeased by payment, minor policies or people installed by the sultan. The janissaries of the late 16th and 17th century were also employed as firefigthers and had the unpleasant habit of setting fire to the houses of political rivals or to the houses of rich people just to steal their stuff and gently caress them up. In the book that I'm just reading there's a story about a fire breaking out near the Tophane foundries in Istanbul, the Agha sends his men over to put it out, but the gunners of the foundry were first. The janissaries that were there halfway were angry, since now they wouldn't get payed for quelling the flames. So they set out to the nearby villa of the grand vizier and put it to the torch, only to claim the loot for putting out the flames. Istanbul was famous for it's wooden houses. Everything was made of wood, and by setting fires they usually burned down whole districts of the city (also burning lots of citizens and janissaries that tried to put out the fires). "We set fire to this district, but we also tried to put it out. We now demand payment for our services. Or else." These dudes were also famous for their love of underage boys. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 12:19
|
|
|
That rules, and is in no way surprising to me once you said "the Janissaries are also firefighters." If you give people an inch... Although, the Spanish army strike is a little harder core than a modern labor incident--SOP is to take a Spanish city, hold it (in the mean time you have expelled your officers and elected your own leaders), and tell the authorities that you won't give it back until you get payed/your demands are met. People forget that the early modern army has a place in labor history as well as military history. Edit: InspectorBloor posted:These dudes were also famous for their love of underage boys. 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 12:26
|
|
|
A question mostly for HEGEL: In the early modern period, what would happen with veterans of big, drawn-out conflicts like the 30YW once peace had come? With the increase in soldier population, I imagine there must have been a lot of people had fought for years and years, knew no other craft than killing and were too old to really learn a new one. A whole generation grew up surrounded by that war, and "grizzled badass and also a broken human being incapable of relating to the world except through violence" can't make for a great peacetime resume. Do we have any records on the fate of veterans, did they usually settle down on a farm somewhere, turn to banditry, starve, or what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:So were Italian professional soldiers. What's the reasoning for Janissaries or Italian mercenaries to be so into underage boys? Was it just a weird thing? I'm really bewildered by it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 13:25
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:A question mostly for HEGEL: Sandwolf posted:What's the reasoning for Janissaries or Italian mercenaries to be so into underage boys? Most of these relationships involved an age difference but both partners were supposed to be adults--although they framed it in different terms than we do, they also thought taking advantage of children is wrong. Dude-on-dude is fine, but if you know a guy's a pederast that's perverted. I don't know a lot about this, but I do know that one Renaissance Italian officer was executed for setting up an underground child brothel. If I had to guess I'd say that in Italy it was a twisted version of the teacher-pupil relationship. As far as we know, child sexual abuse happened a lot back then; these are very hierarchical societies and it is not good to be among the weak. Adult man = fine; woman/boy/girl = not fine and, depending on the culture, for the same reasons. Hell, male-on-male rape is a problem in our army right now, it's just almost never discussed since it doesn't fit with our ideas of what it means to "be a man." If my reasoning is confused here, it's because I don't know very much about the topic and I'm kind of grasping. Not to mention that "raping male children" and "having consensual sex with another man" sometimes are talked about in the same terms--James I, who was a big ol' homo, wrote letters telling his son not to engage in "sodomy," which was evil, and I can only guess he meant child abuse. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
I wonder if that has something to do with access to prostitutes? The vicinity of the barracks was an area where parents wouldn't let their kids come close. The guys would pick up their boys in taverns and dress them as females and veil them. I don't know, maybe it has something to do with females being unavailable and them being forbidden to marry? Though, I have no idea how seggregated ottoman society really was. Speaking of giving an inch, this kind of praetorian system that the ottomans installed is pretty interesting. I didn't know that once you get into the corps you'll get selected for education in one of the colleges. You'll be trained as a professional soldier being put in different ortas accoding to your physique and wit. At the same time while your physical training goes on, you'll get a pretty solid education in a wide range of jobs, from carpenter, smith to bookkeeper, engineer, etc. That means, that these guys were craftsmen or bureaucrats for most of the time, only becoming soldiers when they're on campaign or on garrison duty. Soldier training continuing the whole time. Ottoman army logistics and engineering supposedly was awesome. The men are bound to the corps for life, this being a source of great pride. Technically they're slaves, but that doesn't mean they're just cattle. They're Kul, which means that they're part of the Sultan's family and retainers. Royal slaves. I struggle with a better desription, but think of them as state property, but at the same time civil servants of high social status. Being a Janissary isn't bad. You'll an education and a secure job, at 45 you'll retire and the corps provides anything you'll need, if you live that long. Pay wasn't bad either. The whole power system between Sultan, Janissaries, Sipahi and local gouvernors was pretty delicately balanced and got hosed up really bad once they eroded all the regulations that kept the Janissaries out of day to day life, linking up with the proletariat and making them eligible to hold land/inherit. The Janissary system was organized as a state within the state. Once they started to be able to marry and live outside the barracks (and later linking up with the guilds), everything got messed up. I'm still surprised how this well oiled machine descended into utter lawlessness and corruption in the late 16th century.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:I'm still surprised how this well oiled machine descended into utter lawlessness and corruption in the late 16th century. It's a little later, but Parker discusses the problems the Ottoman Empire was facing in Global Crisis. Edit: And even though Caterina Sforza invented the barracks, most Italian mercenaries live in shanty towns outside the city walls and German mercenaries live in camps or other peoples' houses, commandeered for the purpose. Only rarely, and that in Italy, is there a "barracks" that the rest of the populace can avoid. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:A question mostly for HEGEL: I don't know about the 30YW specifically, but soldiers like what you describe were extremely common throughout the medieval and early modern period. They didn't have much support/help from the governments obviously and I'm sure a lot of them ended up living ugly rootless existences out in the woods somewhere, but there are quite a lot of examples I'm aware of where veterans wound up living relatively well after their service. If you were one of the lucky ones, you might wind up as a guard in castle or a palace (this was probably most common), as a bodyguard or escort for a wealthy merchant or clergy, as a bailiff for a sheriff or as a constable, as a hired blade on a ship (this was also really common, especially in coastal areas), and always, mercenary work was a possibility. The REALLY lucky ones, who managed to endear themselves to their captains, might be given a friendly lease on some land or a position as a schultheiss or sheriff or something. The really REALLY lucky ones might get retained as household troops for their captains, though that tended to be reserved more for the lower nobility rather common men-at-arms. Of course, those who were levied for short periods generally had it somewhat better, they could go back to their villages and just kind of pick up where they left off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:A question mostly for HEGEL: The first thing you must understand is that the modern idea of peace as the normal state of being and war as the exception is not at all true for Early Modernity. I think Parker makes the point in The Military Revolution that between 1450 and 1750, there were only a handful of years (like, less than 5) when all of Europe was really at peace. For much of the Early Modern times, war in Europe was a given. So there is always employment to be found. But unemployed mercenaries were a huge problem, mostly because they tended to band together, and suddenly you have 300 well armed veteran soldiers running through your country, getting drunk and starting poo poo. There is a reason why virtually all city ordinances I researched for my MA had laws against what was called gartende Landsknechte, which were unemployed mercenaries travelling through the area. Basically nip it in the bud before they become too big. Some areas ordered the millers to put the blades of their windmills in certain positions if they spotted travelling mercenaries as an early warning system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:But unemployed mercenaries were a huge problem, mostly because they tended to band together, and suddenly you have 300 well armed veteran soldiers running through your country, getting drunk and starting poo poo. There is a reason why virtually all city ordinances I researched for my MA had laws against what was called gartende Landsknechte, which were unemployed mercenaries travelling through the area. Edit: We should remember, though, that some poor fucker who signed up during the 30YW to increase his chances of getting something to eat and a career soldier from the relatively small, hard forces of a hundred years previously may or may not think about things the same way. The second is going to be antsy, bored, and (invariably) drunk; the first's probably glad to escape. Edit 2: The Dresden Hauptstaatsarchiv is going to be closed from 20 Dec until 4 Jan. Look out, Saxony. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:A question mostly for HEGEL: I know that a little earlier, during the 100 years war, many guys flipped between bandit and mercenary, depending on what looked like it would pay the best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:A whole generation grew up surrounded by that war, and "grizzled badass and also a broken human being incapable of relating to the world except through violence" can't make for a great peacetime resume. The level of violence soldiers saw during the Early Modern Era wasn't really all that. Remember that there were relatively few battles over the course of the 30YW and the biggest killer was disease. Swedish criminal data from the 17th century shows a rise in violent crime but at the same time, when the wars were on, the level of violence was lower than in the 16th century. It kind of looks to me (I've mostly read about Sweden and Finland) that those who survived wars in that era and got back pretty much went back to their day jobs. Which more or less was always farming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:The level of violence soldiers saw during the Early Modern Era wasn't really all that. Remember that there were relatively few battles over the course of the 30YW and the biggest killer was disease. Remember William Crowne's diary--they're a diplomatic mission and they didn't see a single battle, but everyone knows very well to never go into the woods without a convoy, and then a few of their company go missing and turn up tortured to death. Set piece battle or no, that could gently caress you up in the head. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Part of that is battlefield medicine, but part of that is a willingness to spend great amounts of money on protection. For example, in WWII, the Sherman tank was designed to be mechanically reliable, fairly inexpensive to produce (about $500,000 in today-money), and easy to transport. Crew protection was pretty far down the list. The M1 Abrams, on the other hand, had crew survivability as the single most important design priority, everything else took a back seat, with transportability coming in dead last. Dozens of M1s have taken battle damage, and a smaller number have been combat losses (like, not repairable, tank destroyed), but only a handful of crew have been killed. But an M1 costs about $8,000,000 in 2013 dollars. Even though a good number of M4s were knocked out or disabled they actually had a rather low rate of crew fatalities, especially once the improved ammo stowage practices were implemented and followed. I recall it being around 1 crewman killed on average when an M4 was knocked out. Ensign Expendable posted:Torching villages for smoke/light was a common thing on the Eastern Front of WWII as well. Well it would have certainly spalled less than what they were using by the end of the war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
I've been listening to the Norma Centuries podcast, and especially during the conquest(s) of Southern Italy and Sicily and the reign of Roger I, Lars Brownworth describes incredibly outnumbered Normans winning amazing victories, such as at Cerami. What exactly made the Norman cavalry so (seemingly)unstoppable? Also, what was daily life like for a 30YW soldier/mercenary? How awesome was Wallenstein? What/who did it take to get a mercenary company up and running, and what did the companies do once the 30YW was over? Did most of them disband, or were there enough wars for them to go find employment elsewhere?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Back to WWI book chat, the latest LRB has a positive review (ungated) of Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers by UC Berkeley professor Thomas Laqueur. Rather than, like Tuchman, reading the war as a crisis of "European statesmen [who] somehow seemed to tumble into war because of their stupidity, individual idiosyncracies, misunderstandings, and personal complexes of inferiority and grandeur" - and paying very little attention to the Balkans outside a quote from Bismarck - quote:[Clark] sticks resolutely to how and not why the war happened. Or rather, it responds to the question why? with many answers to how? as the years, weeks and then days pass during which various paths to peace were not taken until none was left. Clarks story is saturated with agency. Many actors (the crowned heads of Europe, military men, diplomats, politicians and others), each with their own objectives, acting as rationally and irrationally as humans are wont to act, made decisions that foreclosed on others and collectively led the world into an unimaginable and un-imaged war. Collectively, they produced the greatest black swan event in world history. In the absence of the Homeric gods or the providential wisdom of a monotheistic God to account for what seems so random, Clarks narrative sophistication, his philosophical awareness and his almost preternatural command of his sources makes The Sleepwalkers an exemplary instance of how to navigate this tricky terrain. It is not only the best book on the origins of the First World War that I know but a brilliant and intellectually bracing model for the writing of history more generally. Added to my book list.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
tweekinator posted:I've been listening to the Norma Centuries podcast, and especially during the conquest(s) of Southern Italy and Sicily and the reign of Roger I, Lars Brownworth describes incredibly outnumbered Normans winning amazing victories, such as at Cerami. What exactly made the Norman cavalry so (seemingly)unstoppable? Someone else can actually answer this I'm sure, but take everything Lars Brownworth says with a pinch of salt. I liked the series (and his other one, 12 Byzantine Rulers) but he is fairly sensationalist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Eat poo poo, armor-havers Where do you see blood? Are you looking at the crossguard of the man-at-arms' sword? Also that landsknecht is about to die. Knight is past the head of the halberd, sword not drawn. Something like this will probably follow:  So really you should be saying eat poo poo, polearm-havers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Where do you see blood? Are you looking at the crossguard of the man-at-arms' sword? quote:So really you should be saying eat poo poo, polearm-havers. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Someone else can actually answer this I'm sure, but take everything Lars Brownworth says with a pinch of salt. I liked the series (and his other one, 12 Byzantine Rulers) but he is fairly sensationalist. I was fairly skeptical of his "And then Roger and 150 dudes beat an army of 35,000!", but thank you for the heads up about his tendency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
tweekinator posted:I was fairly skeptical of his "And then Roger and 150 dudes beat an army of 35,000!", but thank you for the heads up about his tendency. When it comes to medieval and classical battles of this sort, I almost always assume the numbers claimed in primary accounts are overstated by anywhere from 2/3s to 9/10s, sometimes even more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:A question mostly for HEGEL: Kemper Boyd posted:The level of violence soldiers saw during the Early Modern Era wasn't really all that. Remember that there were relatively few battles over the course of the 30YW and the biggest killer was disease. Allotted soldiers (ie. not mercenaries) in Sweden's army in the 30 Years War could get discharged for three different reasons: death, old age or crippling wound. For 80% of them the reason was the first one. And old or crippled people don't make that good bandits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Part of that is battlefield medicine, but part of that is a willingness to spend great amounts of money on protection. For example, in WWII, the Sherman tank was designed to be mechanically reliable, fairly inexpensive to produce (about $500,000 in today-money), and easy to transport. Crew protection was pretty far down the list. The M1 Abrams, on the other hand, had crew survivability as the single most important design priority, everything else took a back seat, with transportability coming in dead last. Dozens of M1s have taken battle damage, and a smaller number have been combat losses (like, not repairable, tank destroyed), but only a handful of crew have been killed. But an M1 costs about $8,000,000 in 2013 dollars. Who wins in a fight, a single M1 or 16 Shermans? My money's on the M1 because it has better aim, maneuverability, and it would take a lot of hits or a lucky shot to incapacitate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Pretty a single M1 would take out over a hundred Sherman tanks with only minor surface damage and the cost of a huge rear end amount of shells. WW2 medium tank versus a late 20th century MBT ouch.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Who wins in a fight, a single M1 or 16 Shermans? My money's on the M1 because it has better aim, maneuverability, and it would take a lot of hits or a lucky shot to incapacitate it. I'd go with the M1. ERA seems like it'd loving murder AT shells of WW2 era, the M1 can fire accurately while moving, the M1 can see in the dark, and according to wikipedia the sherman has like 1/5 the penetration needed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Pretty a single M1 would take out over a hundred Sherman tanks with only minor surface damage and the cost of a huge rear end amount of shells. One would assume that at least one Sherman would get a shot at the side or rear while the M1 is busy murdering all the others, but these kind of contests always devolve into MIC fetishists masturbating about the latest weapon technology. The real question is: stone age warriors vs. battlemechs, who wins? Exhibit a: Return of the Jedi.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Only real hope the Shermans would have would be to outnumber the M1 by a lot, maneuver it into a corner, and ram it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:One would assume that at least one Sherman would get a shot at the side or rear while the M1 is busy murdering all the others, but these kind of contests always devlove into MIC fetishists masturbating about the latest weapon technology. The side isn't going to work, even other Abrams couldn't penetrate the side armor in the Gulf War. I couldn't find info about the rear in a cursory search, but it only has to have 147mm of protection to beat the Sherman. Track hits and then staying the hell away are the Sherman's only hope. As for battlemechs, Return of the Jedi is a classic example of deploying the wrong vehicle for the terrain. Did the Empire deploy ANY vehicles suitable for the terrain? Those Landspeeders certainly weren't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Also that landsknecht is about to die. Knight is past the head of the halberd, sword not drawn. Something like this will probably follow: HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:55 |
|
|
Shermans are all well and good, but how many tank destroyers would it take to take down an M1?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:05
|
|