|
Bullied to death by nerds. It's like a russian nesting doll but with geeks. Someone get Xzibit in here.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
Godholio posted:They didn't drive poo poo. This is the McDonalds boiling coffee lawsuit all over again. Not to derail the thread into tort reform chat but please watch "Hot Coffee" if you have netflix, its available for streaming. The McDonalds lawsuit is not actually what its been portrayed as.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Godholio posted:They didn't drive poo poo. This is the McDonalds boiling coffee lawsuit all over again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Would somebody smart who knows what they're talking about do an effort post on bicycles in war, both in terms of bicycle infantry (who I gather functioned akin to dragoons), scouting use, couriers, and logistical mounts? I guess there could be a huge overlap with motorcycles. Comedy option
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Would somebody smart who knows what they're talking about do an effort post on bicycles in war, both in terms of bicycle infantry (who I gather functioned akin to dragoons), scouting use, couriers, and logistical mounts? I guess there could be a huge overlap with motorcycles. Comedy option I just know that the Soviets developed a bicycle that carried an anti-tank rifle. Trials were a little, uh...pessimistic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I just know that the Soviets developed a bicycle that carried an anti-tank rifle. Trials were a little, uh...pessimistic. French did it better.  Bicycle infantry in Finland has been normal light infantry with bikes for rapid (and relatively silent) transportation. Marches happen more rapidly and equipping large amount of troops is relatively cheap which was the main selling point for a poor country. On the flipside infantry on bikes is more vulnerable as it takes a bit longer to get into cover. You'll also have to haul it with you when terrain becomes unsuitable to drive on. Army bikes weren't know for their ergonomy, earning the nickname "ball wrangler". FDF no longer use bikes in wartime, but they are still an important part of P.E. training.   Armored forces have used trail motorbikes for scouting purposes. The plan is to drive relatively close to expected enemy positions and go the rest of the way by foot, then work as scout for the main force. Completely insane job. Wish I could have been one. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
The fact that it's a KTM is just 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 08:48
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Would somebody smart who knows what they're talking about do an effort post on bicycles in war, both in terms of bicycle infantry (who I gather functioned akin to dragoons), scouting use, couriers, and logistical mounts? I guess there could be a huge overlap with motorcycles. Comedy option As I recall the Japanese invasion of Malaya used bicycles heavily. Not really an expert to know the details though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
I heard the swiss bicycle infantry's job was to coast from the mounts to the valleys and piedmonts and disengage as infantry. No clue if it's true. I really am wanting a true effortpost on bicycles in war thought. A wall of text that stretches for two posts and impedes all bikes.Hob_Gadling posted:Bicycle infantry in Finland has been normal light infantry with bikes for rapid (and relatively silent) transportation. Marches happen more rapidly and equipping large amount of troops is relatively cheap which was the main selling point for a poor country. On the flipside infantry on bikes is more vulnerable as it takes a bit longer to get into cover. You'll also have to haul it with you when terrain becomes unsuitable to drive on. Army bikes weren't know for their ergonomy, earning the nickname "ball wrangler". FDF no longer use bikes in wartime, but they are still an important part of P.E. training. Ahh, so you're a finn then, I guess bikes are less useful than crosscountry folks on skis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 10:48
|
|
|
If someone was setting out to spend their life studying the life and times of Otto I, how would they do that? What kind of languages, if any, would they need to learn? What sort of degrees would they need to pursue? What writings would they need to produce to be considered an expert, and where would these works have to be published? Please help me with this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 11:10
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Ahh, so you're a finn then, I guess bikes are less useful than crosscountry folks on skis. Skis don't work too well in summer. Light infantry (Jägers) would use bicycles in summer, skis in winter. A bicycle unit couldn't operate fully on its own, though, and backpacks and tents etc. were carried on trucks and horse wagons. Skis are more versatile as you can easily load all of the equipment on man drawn sleds (ahkio), including heavier weapons like mortars so it's not just a light infantry transport. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 11:47
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Would somebody smart who knows what they're talking about do an effort post on bicycles in war, both in terms of bicycle infantry (who I gather functioned akin to dragoons), scouting use, couriers, and logistical mounts? I guess there could be a huge overlap with motorcycles. Comedy option Bicycles were important to logistics in the Vietnam War, with supply-laden bicycles being the main method of getting goods through the Ho Chi Minh Trail before they could cut a road wide enough for trucks. Even later in the war when the road situation became easier, a person pushing a bicycle was the best way for the NVA to move supplies cheaply and quietly. I don't know much about this subject, this article might interest you. Chamale fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 12:00
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:If someone was setting out to spend their life studying the life and times of Otto I, how would they do that? What kind of languages, if any, would they need to learn? What sort of degrees would they need to pursue? What writings would they need to produce to be considered an expert, and where would these works have to be published? Please help me with this. (While you're doing this and ideally before) Learn Latin. Learn modern German. Learn Old High German. Learn medieval Latin, because in some areas it's different enough to piss people off. Learn paleography and diplomatics--although many primary sources will have been edited and published by some tireless citizen of the Second Reich. Seriously, 19th century academics produced a lot. After PhD, try to find job--you could become a teaching professor, but you might also want to work in some archives or for a museum, if you decide you're more into the material goods side of things. Produce articles, produce books. The articles get published in journals that are respected by medievalists or HRE specialists, and I don't know what they are. The books get carried by small academic presses and sold to people like me at a hundred bucks a pop.  Why do you ask--are you writing a character in a work of fiction that is an Otto I expert? ...is it for Call of Cthulthu? HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 12:10
|
|
|
veekie posted:As I recall the Japanese invasion of Malaya used bicycles heavily. Not really an expert to know the details though. Japanese invasions everywhere utilized bicycles. Though it should be noted they were no miraculous super-mobile devices. If I remember correctly, of the entire force involved in the battle of Bandjermasin, Borneo, only four bicycles survived the long and strenuous march from Balikpapan to Bandjermasin. The natural adversities encountered by the Japanese in East Indies were often just way too great for a humble bike.  It should also be realized that the Japanese Army was built on a rather crude foundation of support and logistical units, and individual soldiers were expected to be more self sufficient and less "pampered" than their Western counterparts, which put further strain on survivability of bikes. As a grim illustration, consider the following image:  The white parcels carried over necks of these men are urns with ashes of their fallen comrades. There was no service for taking care of remains, the Japanese soldier was meant to carry them on his own until they could be shipped to Japan. That's just one of many examples of how the Japanese were too overburdened and too un-supported to take full advantage of bicycle troops - a fine concept in theory - and in practice were forced to always fall back on conventional marching and use of pack mules (and human pack mules).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
I believe the Axis and their minor allies also made use of explicit bicycle battalions, particularly during the Fall Blau/Stalingrad campaign. Also, I'm only about a third of the way into Shattered Sword and it really is such a fascinating book. I read Craig Symonds' Midway book last year and this forms a great counter-point because it's written primarily from the viewpoint of the Japanese, breaking down their overall strategy, operational plans, doctrine, equipment and tactics in a manner that really reveals just how different they fought relative to Americans, and how most what-ifs and previous Ameri-centric histories of Midway just doesn't hold up. EDIT: I still have very little love for Stanhope Ring and his lost flight. That guy screwed up so bad it still stands out on a history from the other side. It's as eye-opening as my first delve in David Glantz and the realities of Operation Barbarossa and Typhoon gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 13:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Japanese invasions everywhere utilized bicycles. Though it should be noted they were no miraculous super-mobile devices. If I remember correctly, of the entire force involved in the battle of Bandjermasin, Borneo, only four bicycles survived the long and strenuous march from Balikpapan to Bandjermasin. The natural adversities encountered by the Japanese in East Indies were often just way too great for a humble bike. How effective were they as a means of getting troops on site though? Local history says they basically cut through Malaya in record time and reached Singapore before the British could adjust for the unexpected angle of attack, but given how occupied they were with the Europe side of WWII I'm not sure if it'd have made much difference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 14:11
|
|
|
Hegel, just wanted to let you know that I'm seriously considering getting into Early Modern history after I finish my comparative religion thesis on Nazi Germany.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
veekie posted:How effective were they as a means of getting troops on site though? Local history says they basically cut through Malaya in record time and reached Singapore before the British could adjust for the unexpected angle of attack, but given how occupied they were with the Europe side of WWII I'm not sure if it'd have made much difference. Bikes were helpful, no doubt about that, but people often cite them as the primary reason for the Japanese swift victory without paying attention to other factors that made advance possible. Such as precise deployment of light tanks from Siam to support the main invasion, general tendency of the Japanese to design equipment to be as light as possible and easily transportable by unsupported infantry even in difficult terrain, military doctrine very much aligned with jungle warfare, and of course questionable state of British defenses. The IJA managed similarly quick advances even in theatres where bikes usually aren't mentioned, and where terrain was similarly difficult - Burma (where the Britsh were once again shocked and overwhelmed when tanks showed up where they expected nothing), the Philippines... Also, compared to other theatres in which the Japanese were engaged, Malaya had an excellent road network so really it stands to reason they would be able to move faster. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
I know this may be a lot to ask, but how does "A Song of Ice and Fire" align with the Wars of the Roses? I keep seeing people saying that it's basically a "Identities have been changed to protect the innocent" dramatic fiction retelling of the war/politics between the various parties. Who represents the Lancasters? The Yorks? Richard III? Who the hell are the Night's Watch supposed to be? Scots?, What about the Starks then? Do the fictional house banners have any relevance? Is Stannis' flaming heart banner supposed to have something to do with The Church? I thought Christianity was pretty much the mode by then, but you've got the Starks with their druidism-seeming tree prayer, and then everyone else with their 7-faced quasi-monotheism. I'm lost but it seems like one hell of a neat thing to be able to see how the Wars of the Roses have been put through the prism of fiction. Again, I understand it looks like a lot of poo poo and won't be put off if I get a  and return to 39YW stuff. This has been an amazing thread to read over the past week or so, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I know this may be a lot to ask, but how does "A Song of Ice and Fire" align with the Wars of the Roses? I keep seeing people saying that it's basically a "Identities have been changed to protect the innocent" dramatic fiction retelling of the war/politics between the various parties. Who represents the Lancasters? The Yorks? Richard III? Who the hell are the Night's Watch supposed to be? Scots?, What about the Starks then? Do the fictional house banners have any relevance? Is Stannis' flaming heart banner supposed to have something to do with The Church? I thought Christianity was pretty much the mode by then, but you've got the Starks with their druidism-seeming tree prayer, and then everyone else with their 7-faced quasi-monotheism. Those people were full of poo poo. ASOIAF was certainly inspired by the Wars of the Roses to some extent - the author himself has said as much - and there are some obvious parallels, with one of the key plots in the books being a conflict between the noble families Stark (York) and Lannister (Lancaster). Other than that, and the high/late Medieval-ish setting of the books, there are few direct similarities. One thing is identical in the books, however: The Lancasters/Lannisters win. Alekanderu fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I know this may be a lot to ask, but how does "A Song of Ice and Fire" align with the Wars of the Roses? Beaten, but yeah it's really more of an "inspired by in broad strokes" rather than "with the serial numbers filed off" level that you'd see in, say, The Lion King or Harry Turtledove.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:Those people were full of poo poo. ASOIAF was certainly inspired by the Wars of the Roses to some extent - the author himself has said as much - and there are some obvious parallels, with one of the key plots in the books being a conflict between the noble families Stark (York) and Lannister (Lancaster). Other than that, and the high/late Medieval-ish setting of the books, there are few direct similarities. gradenko_2000 posted:Beaten, but yeah it's really more of an "inspired by in broad strokes" rather than "with the serial numbers filed off" level that you'd see in, say, The Lion King or Harry Turtledove. 'Serial numbers filed off' was the phrase I couldn't quite remember someone posting in a thread! I remembered it was something implying a near 1:1 story, but couldn't recall the wording. Thanks! Good to know I was on the right track not really seeing the level of similarity that implies. I'm a possibly-ex-to-be History major (pushing 30 and no BA - for shame, I know, but I'm finding, far too late for comfort, that my love for all things historical extends to hobbyist levels but not necessarily "Gollum of the Primary Sources" levels. I've knocked out a few undergrad final papers and am finding I'm more satisfied with idly reading the sources and not using them. It has helped me with my job as an AML analyst when putting together narratives, so there's that.  ) and really like that the thread's putting a lot of effort into stuff like the early modern era. Any schmuck can write a thousand pages on what made McClellan so cripplingly deliberate, but pages and pages of leisurely talk of Landsknechts and (H)Arquebusiers?  To take a big step back in time, what are the earliest feasible references to military tactics beyond "surround the other guys and smash/stab/sling?" I don't mean artillery placement, but more like stuff such as separation of combat roles, strategic movements, etc. What was the level of strategic battle planning when people like Ashurbanipal were stomping around the fertile crescent?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Well, it was and still is a garrison city with a battalion attached to it, so it has a certain military value. (Today it is the EloKa Btl. 912, an electronic warfare battalion, in the past it was rocket artillery and tanks.) Panzergrenadiere as well! All of PzBrig 3 except for PzBtl 33 & PzJgKp 30 actually (and Luttmersen isn't that far away in any case), so nowadays you could full up invade a country with what used to be in Nienburg. But after they'd have cleared out to join up with the rest of 1. Panzerdivision, probably before H-hour since that's a hair-trigger formation, and hopefully before a Territorialheer formation is ready to take over, it's great fun to cut I Korps' area of operations in half!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Bikes were helpful, no doubt about that, but people often cite them as the primary reason for the Japanese swift victory without paying attention to other factors that made advance possible. Such as precise deployment of light tanks from Siam to support the main invasion, general tendency of the Japanese to design equipment to be as light as possible and easily transportable by unsupported infantry even in difficult terrain, military doctrine very much aligned with jungle warfare, and of course questionable state of British defenses. The IJA managed similarly quick advances even in theatres where bikes usually aren't mentioned, and where terrain was similarly difficult - Burma (where the Britsh were once again shocked and overwhelmed when tanks showed up where they expected nothing), the Philippines... So in detail basically bikes were part of an overall more effective jungle warfare strategy rather than the driving factor then? What did the British do wrong there that they sucked so bad at jungles?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Panzergrenadiere as well! All of PzBrig 3 except for PzBtl 33 & PzJgKp 30 actually (and Luttmersen isn't that far away in any case), so nowadays you could full up invade a country with what used to be in Nienburg. By comparison, the worst thing that happened to Nienburg in WWII was a bomb blowing up a train transporting ammunition. Also, people randomly disappeared, mostly just after some silent guy left the pub just after hearing a joke about Hitler, but that's quite normal in a dictatorship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
veekie posted:So in detail basically bikes were part of an overall more effective jungle warfare strategy rather than the driving factor then? What did the British do wrong there that they sucked so bad at jungles? Possibly just being distantly separated from the paradigm of warfare in which they had been trained. Japan itself isn't exactly a jungle-ridden country but the IJA probably planned for operations in places like the jungles of Southeast Asia and pacific islands. Contrast British war planning which was probably largely continental land war-centric, with the assumption that stuff like their colonial possessions being unable to put up anything other than the most rag-tag of rag-tag rebellions. Take a look at the US in Vietnam. WWII could have been a hell of a lesson with the pacific campaign's many island fights, but along comes Vietnam some 20 years later and it's like nobody could figure out how to fight in the jungle. For gently caress's sake they weren't chroming the M16's receivers at first. A bike can go probably 90% of where feet can (excluding specific terrain/environs like snow or water), with a significant part of what's left being passable with the bike lugged along. It's a way to split the difference between motorized cavalry like AFV's and tanks, and walking. Basically, unless you're expecting a shitload of 'bad for bikes' terrain it's a relatively sound option for movement as long as you're not looking to get into protracted engagements in open terrain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Possibly just being distantly separated from the paradigm of warfare in which they had been trained. Japan itself isn't exactly a jungle-ridden country but the IJA probably planned for operations in places like the jungles of Southeast Asia and pacific islands. Contrast British war planning which was probably largely continental land war-centric, with the assumption that stuff like their colonial possessions being unable to put up anything other than the most rag-tag of rag-tag rebellions. Take a look at the US in Vietnam. WWII could have been a hell of a lesson with the pacific campaign's many island fights, but along comes Vietnam some 20 years later and it's like nobody could figure out how to fight in the jungle. For gently caress's sake they weren't chroming the M16's receivers at first. There's also the whole 'year 3 of the war against Germany' thing. East Asia was not a priority for... anything really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
To add to that, the British didn't think they'd ever have to fight a land war with the Japanese in Malaya. They figured that A: It was impossible to march overland down the peninsula so you'd have to land amphibiously to invade and B: The Navy could put a stop to any landings the Japanese attempted. The early chapters of The Jungle is Neutral are great at highlighting this mindset and anyone interested in reading about riding bikes around a jungle should pick it up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Possibly just being distantly separated from the paradigm of warfare in which they had been trained. Japan itself isn't exactly a jungle-ridden country but the IJA probably planned for operations in places like the jungles of Southeast Asia and pacific islands. Contrast British war planning which was probably largely continental land war-centric, with the assumption that stuff like their colonial possessions being unable to put up anything other than the most rag-tag of rag-tag rebellions. Take a look at the US in Vietnam. WWII could have been a hell of a lesson with the pacific campaign's many island fights, but along comes Vietnam some 20 years later and it's like nobody could figure out how to fight in the jungle. For gently caress's sake they weren't chroming the M16's receivers at first. Japanese tactics were oriented entirely on the offensive. It was their opinion that the fighting body of a Japanese division should be at all times seeking an opportunity to exploit, to attack even against seemingly unsurmountable odds, and to prefer close engagements and infiltration of enemy lines over more deliberate approaches. Even their artillery was trained to fire almost exclusively against directly visible targets and to value accuracy over disruption and morale effects of massed but inaccurate fire. In addition the high level command usually didn't attempt to control combat units directly, and individual companies or even individual soldiers were allowed to operate spontaneously according to their own evaluation of the situation. They also formulated their TOEs with China in mind, and China presented an equally scary terrain as Malaya or Burma, and therefore the Japanese entered the war with weapons that weren't spectacular, but were capable of operating optimally even in jungles. It just so happens that all these factors combined provided basically the perfect mix with which to approach the strategic problems faced in 1942's tropical theatres, while they would have been utterly disastrous in Europe. Why?  The above is representative of visibility in the region. You probably can't make out the marching column of soldiers behind the bamboo very well, and neither could Allied sentries. Basically the Japanese army was like an ant swarm that came out of the opaque wall of jungle and, being trained to fight at a bayonet's length, overwhelmed the enemy with its sheer ferocity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:'Serial numbers filed off' was the phrase I couldn't quite remember someone posting in a thread! I remembered it was something implying a near 1:1 story, but couldn't recall the wording. Thanks! Good to know I was on the right track not really seeing the level of similarity that implies. It's not just the war of the Roses, some of the stuff is pretty much Norman conquest (but with dragons). Not that that's a bad thing, mind you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
 thanks folks. I imagined Japan had a better idea of jungle warfare but didn't know it was specifically that much of a difference and thought it was more a shortfall on Britain's part. TMYK  Did Japan have much in the way of planning for repulsing a Russian or Chinese invasion of the home islands? Or was it always "everyone we haven't already conscripted fights to the death with whatever they can get their hands on" for any landing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
All this talk of bikes reminds me of this and makes me wonder again if the author was being far too clever for most readers.ArchangeI posted:As a German, whenever I hear that the EU can't possibly ever work because of linguistic and cultural differences, I just sort of giggle. Apparently because of the girl that taught me the conversational German (as opposed to what I learned from Call of Duty and war movies...) and the natural accent of Dubliners I sound like a child from Berlin mangling Thüringische.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:
The Kwantung Army spent 6 years building fortifications on the mainland to protect against the Soviets, not that it helped all that much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Did Japan have much in the way of planning for repulsing a Russian or Chinese invasion of the home islands? Or was it always "everyone we haven't already conscripted fights to the death with whatever they can get their hands on" for any landing? They weren't really that afraid of a Russian or Chinese invasion of the Home Islands, because they knew that those countries did not have the sealift capability for it. They did not want to piss off the Russians because they wanted to hang on to Manchukuo as a colony of sorts to maintain some semblance of Empire, but otherwise any hypothetical of the Home Islands would be fought in the same broad strokes as an American one in the every-man-is-a-bamboo-fighting-conscript fashion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:every-man-is-a-bamboo-fighting-conscript fashion. I'm pretty sure they were planning to use a lot more than just adult men there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Overland campaigns for the Japanese were somewhat restricted by their lack of motorized artillery, which gave them less of an advantage over the Chinese than they should have. In fact, there were times where the Nationalist Chinese had a significant artillery advantage. While they did fine in areas where the capability was less relevant, and on islands where guns could be placed ahead of time, their performance in battle with the Russians was greatly hampered by their lack of motorized artillery. Lack of motorized artillery was a problem in a lot of the smaller axis countries as well, making their infantry divisions weak. Romania, for example, did not have motorized artillery at the divisional level which hurt their combat capability quite a bit. They had to rely on copied Soviet 120mm mortars for the work and they weren't quite the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Another problem was that the Kwantung Army had been stripped of equipment and men to defend the Home Islands. It would be interesting to know how much of that equipment and personnel ever made it to Japan, considering how well the USN was blockading Japan at that time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Another problem was that the Kwantung Army had been stripped of equipment and men to defend the Home Islands. They were also caught in mid redeployment when August Storm started, ie. the worst possible position to be in to react to a mechanized offensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Hegel, just wanted to let you know that I'm seriously considering getting into Early Modern history after I finish my comparative religion thesis on Nazi Germany.  One day, we all will be early modernists. I actually made the same switch from studying Nazism to the Early Modern. Reading Nazi stuff depressed me too much--the guys I study now may lead grim lives of almost unrelieved horror, but apart from that they're normal people. Nazis write like random word generators designed to spit out bullshit; Early Modern guys write like human beings. Edit: Even the guys who want to exterminate $RELIGIOUS_ENEMY from $AREA for the glory of $RELIGIOUS_INGROUP, of which there are many, make more sense as people with aims than Nazis. Ugh. Edit: The Entire Universe posted:'Serial numbers filed off' was the phrase I couldn't quite remember someone posting in a thread! I remembered it was something implying a near 1:1 story, but couldn't recall the wording. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:'Serial numbers filed off' was the phrase I couldn't quite remember someone posting in a thread! I remembered it was something implying a near 1:1 story, but couldn't recall the wording. Thanks! Good to know I was on the right track not really seeing the level of similarity that implies. IIRC encirclement wasn't really tactically feasible until Hannibal did it? I remember reading something about evidence of encirclement in the Peloponnesian war. Keep in mind that in ancient times most warriors were also farmers and couldn't fight year-round. By extension, winning a major battle decisively wasn't just a tactical victory, but a strategic one too because it would cripple your opponent's economy. Not that anyone thought in those terms, according to what people have said earlier in this thread. I get the feeling there wasn't much to it beyond "go there and gently caress their poo poo up" until much, much later. I know the romans had means of delegating individual legions to different objectives but that isn't saying much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:56
|
|