|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Was this because of his injuries, or was he rendered mute through mental stress? One of my great-uncles was attacked by a bear when he was a teen, and even though he somehow avoided getting seriously injured, he was so terrified by it that he had to learn how to speak again - I wouldn't be surprised if Niccolo experienced the same thing.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
Fangz posted:You misread what he said. He meant that the promotion of Frankish cavalry as being decisive at Tours was an anachronism beloved by scholars during later chivalric times. Yeah, that's what I was saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
It should be noted that most historians would be very, very wary of describing anything in the Early Modern Times with terms of modern medicine. Sicknesses exist in a cultural context, calling Heimweh a form of PTSD would simply be inaccurate. And besides, psychology stresses that the most important thing is to actually talk to the patient, this is impossible with historical figures for obvious reasons. While you can read diaries and letters, these only get you so far. And it must be noted that letters, in particular, are a form of public communication, which means that the writer tries to create a certain image of himself. Put simply, what do you do with a duke who writes how sad he feels about the world in a time where a ruler was supposed to understand the sorrowful state of the world and shoulder the weight of reigning in it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Awesome stuff. You're awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Man, why would you just slash a 12 year old in the face repeatedly 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Mans posted:Man, why would you just slash a 12 year old in the face repeatedly Might be just adrenaline and frustration from needing to take the city by storm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
This is going to be awfully specific, but I can't find this anywhere and it's beginning to drive me mad. During 1918-19, roughly how much of the Czechoslovak Legion was involved in fighting alongside Kolchak forces on the eastern front, as opposed to loving around in the far east and keeping tabs on their railroad?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Mans posted:Man, why would you just slash a 12 year old in the face repeatedly ArchangeI posted:It should be noted that most historians would be very, very wary of describing anything in the Early Modern Times with terms of modern medicine. Sicknesses exist in a cultural context, calling Heimweh a form of PTSD would simply be inaccurate. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Jan 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Face and head; his skull was layed open to the brain. To persuade his parents to give you their money. But his family had none. Holy poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Face and head; his skull was layed open to the brain. To persuade his parents to give you their money. But his family had none. I guess that's why cities surrendered after sieges rather than force an assault  Where was that HEGEL post on the culture of sieges again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
A thing you learn from linguistics is that whenever you have an expression commonly used, there's going to emerge a short word for it. Swedish has a word for "pay us so we don't burn down your city." The Early Modern Period was fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:A thing you learn from linguistics is that whenever you have an expression commonly used, there's going to emerge a short word for it. Swedish has a word for "pay us so we don't burn down your city." The Early Modern Period was fun. Which word would that be? Consider my curiosity piqued.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:Which word would that be? Consider my curiosity piqued. Brandskatt. Literally "fire tax". My guess is that the term is German in origin, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:Brandskatt. Literally "fire tax". My guess is that the term is German in origin, actually. Yeah, it sounds like "Brandschatzen", which has a similar meaning. Which I just now recognized, thanks to you. (I just never thought about the meaning of that word until now, fancy that.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
I really enjoy reading about counterforce and countervalue nuclear war. Creepy, I know. Are there any really good papers or reports on this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Yeah, it sounds like "Brandschatzen", which has a similar meaning. Which I just now recognized, thanks to you. (I just never thought about the meaning of that word until now, fancy that.) Kemper Boyd posted:The Early Modern Period was fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
I'm looking to buy a book or two about the First World War. I'm looking for a general overview of the battles and the fronts, but also a picture of the home front, public opinion, and what the people at the top were thinking while it was going on. Could you kind goons recommend any books like that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Admittedly, this isn't precisely what you asked for, but the traditional entry point to the First World War is The Guns of August, which is a great summation of the immediate causes of the war and the first few weeks up until the Marne. Very readable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:I'm looking to buy a book or two about the First World War. I'm looking for a general overview of the battles and the fronts, but also a picture of the home front, public opinion, and what the people at the top were thinking while it was going on. Could you kind goons recommend any books like that? http://www.amazon.co.uk/1914-1918-H...d+war+1914-1918 Alchenar fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:I'm looking to buy a book or two about the First World War. I'm looking for a general overview of the battles and the fronts, but also a picture of the home front, public opinion, and what the people at the top were thinking while it was going on. Could you kind goons recommend any books like that? You would probably enjoy the latest episode of the hardcore history podcast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
I can't help but imagine one of these as That Guy in the company. The one who was way too enthusiastic about this specific job and nobody really likes to talk to him for extended periods of time, because while every mercenary likes fire, Brandmeister Peter over there really likes fire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:I'm looking to buy a book or two about the First World War. I'm looking for a general overview of the battles and the fronts, but also a picture of the home front, public opinion, and what the people at the top were thinking while it was going on. Could you kind goons recommend any books like that? Seconding the Guns of August. It's good for this specific purpose because it details the breakdown of the various gentlemen's agreements between countries not to start shooting, as each player falls to the allure of reaching for that brass ring of continental hegemony. Basically 'we had better move before they do' with each they meaning everyone other than the speaker. France wanted to avenge 1871, Germany felt like they were unfairly seen as a bully, and wanted to slap France around some more for feeling raw after 1871, Britain had their agreement to defend Belgian neutrality as an excuse to dive in and slap the Germans around, etc. Germany was really painted as a douchebag, what with the Kaiser wanting to be a bully but not incur the wrath of other powers for doing so. Everyone wanted to knock Germany down a peg or three, Germany saw that writing on the wall and thought conquering France would basically shut everyone up. I honestly wonder if they could have done it if it weren't for their traipse through Belgium giving Britain an excuse to join in defending France. But that's wild and uneducated speculation. I think it would be an interesting topic but I'm a dullard in that realm. E: Guildencrantz posted:
Am I reading that wiki article properly in assuming that the Brandmeister's job is to basically raise funds by threatening to burn down villages? FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Germany was really painted as a douchebag, what with the Kaiser wanting to be a bully but not incur the wrath of other powers for doing so. Everyone wanted to knock Germany down a peg or three, Germany saw that writing on the wall and thought conquering France would basically shut everyone up. I honestly wonder if they could have done it if it weren't for their traipse through Belgium giving Britain an excuse to join in defending France. But that's wild and uneducated speculation. I think it would be an interesting topic but I'm a dullard in that realm. As you note this is getting into gay black hitler territory but had the Germans not gone through Belgium and knocked Russia out first while sitting in Alsace, they probably would have won.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Davincie posted:Yeah, that's what I was saying. OK, but I still do not see how you could make your argument. I've never come across mention of Tours in my studies of chivalry, and it seems that Tours received so little attention until the 18th and 19th centuries that any interest of 'hyping' the value of horsemen would not transmit. Consider, for example, that the Chronicle of St. Denis, written in the 13th-15th centuries, makes no reference whatsoever to Christian cavalry, and indeed the description is extremely sparse on any details of army composition. More crucially the battle of Tours was completely overshadowed by the heavily mythologized Battle of Roncesvalles which transformed from a (admittedly serious) defeat against Basques into a much greater struggle against the invading Muslims. Thus Luigi Pulci wrote of Roncesvalles, "Again fled the Saracens, never to come to Christendom more" A minor point is that using a battle fought entirely with infantry on the Frankish side as an example of cavalry's efficacy seems unlikely. While popular imagination could certainly twist such battles, as we've seen with Roncesvalles, there were better candidates for popular retelling. As an aside, here's an interesting article on Tours. Seems sound to me. http://deremilitari.org/2013/09/the-battle-of-tours-poitiers-revisited/ Squalid posted:I've read later Carolingian armies were centered around a core of mounted infantry, i.e. men that rode to battle but fought on foot. The author Bernard S. Bachrach in his book Early Carolingian Warfare describes the phalanx as the primary formation of the Carolingian army, and quotes a source which says the Franks line stood like a "wall of ice" at the battle of Tours, although I don't have the book now and can't check his sources. FIghting as a phalanx would make sense for the Merovingians and Carolingians, who had a lot of continuity with late Roman tactics and strategy, although besides that they dismounted for combat I haven't read anything detailed on their tactics or equipment. Be very careful when reading Bachrach. He is inordinately fond of extrapolation from slim evidence, and presents peculiar scenarios based on very questionable reasoning. For example he assumes the ships used in the Norman conquest of England were of the same proportions as the ships used in the Norman invasion of Crete. His obsession with continuity between the Romans and the Carolingians, and his consequent obsession with infantry, makes his views on the presence, value, and versatility of knights questionable as well. quote:Might be better to ask this in the medieval warfare thread, but anyone know how Carolingian armies were levied and organized? How much detail do you want? My copy of Guy Halsall's Warfare in the Barbarian West goes into some, but even he is pretty vague as far as the actual choice of who, exactly, goes or stays. There was a mix of a kind of national service (rather like the Fyrd in England) and mercenaries, as well as personal armies or warbands, to use a term typically applied to earlier periods. I can go into a bit more detail I'd just like to know more of what you're looking for. Or you can pick up Halsall's book from Amazon and read it for yourself. It's well worth the price.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Am I reading that wiki article properly in assuming that the Brandmeister's job is to basically raise funds by threatening to burn down villages? Edit: Why does this surprise you? I mean, it's at the tail end of a number of relatively straightforward if--then statements. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Seconding the Guns of August. It's good for this specific purpose because it details the breakdown of the various gentlemen's agreements between countries not to start shooting, as each player falls to the allure of reaching for that brass ring of continental hegemony. Basically 'we had better move before they do' with each they meaning everyone other than the speaker. France wanted to avenge 1871, Germany felt like they were unfairly seen as a bully, and wanted to slap France around some more for feeling raw after 1871, Britain had their agreement to defend Belgian neutrality as an excuse to dive in and slap the Germans around, etc. The most fascinating aspect for me is how the militaries of the various European states were completely horrified at the thought that peace might be maintained after they were promised a war. Guns of August is full of grown men breaking down crying after the Kaiser/Czar/President postponed mobilization by a day to give the diplomats a little more time. It is probably unprovable, but I'd say there was at least an element of "We worked on our mobilization plan for ten years, by God we're gonna use it!" involved. quote:Am I reading that wiki article properly in assuming that the Brandmeister's job is to basically raise funds by threatening to burn down villages? Fun fact: Brandmeister is still in use in Germany and refers to a rank in the fire department.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:His job is to raise money and food from local populations by enforcing contributions. The title is synecdoche. In short: yup. It's just surprising in a vacuum. What else does a 16th century regiment do for supplies in occupied territory?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:I really enjoy reading about counterforce and countervalue nuclear war. Creepy, I know. Are there any really good papers or reports on this? This goes into it a fair amount. It's not specifically about that, but it's a good read. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00C5R7F8G/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:As you note this is getting into gay black hitler territory but had the Germans not gone through Belgium and knocked Russia out first while sitting in Alsace, they probably would have won. I think the Germans bought into the whole Cult of the Offensive thing just as much as the French did so it would have been unthinkable for them to just wait and react.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
WW1 book recommendations: I thought A World Undone was a great breakdown of the war in general. He covers the political machinations leading up to the war (spoiler alert: the Austro-Hungarians are scheming assholes), delves into the background of each country and goes into the right amount of detail when it comes to pivotal battles such as the Marne, the Somme, Verdun, Tannenberg, Gorlice-Tarnow and the Brusilov Offensive. On that note, can I get a recommendation for a good book about the Russian Civil War? I feel like that'd be a good follow-up to my WW1 kick. Shimrra Jamaane posted:I think the Germans bought into the whole Cult of the Offensive thing just as much as the French did so it would have been unthinkable for them to just wait and react. Not that I'm disagreeing with your post in general, but the French Cult of the Offensive was doctrine that permeated every level of their army, from the strategic down to the operational through to the tactical level. The Germans had to launch an offensive against France (and therefore Belgium) because of strategic and political considerations, but "Cult of the Offensive"-type thinking didn't extend down to their choice of artillery, the color of their pantaloons and their use of machine guns and rifle fire vs bayonet charges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:How much detail do you want? My copy of Guy Halsall's Warfare in the Barbarian West goes into some, but even he is pretty vague as far as the actual choice of who, exactly, goes or stays. There was a mix of a kind of national service (rather like the Fyrd in England) and mercenaries, as well as personal armies or warbands, to use a term typically applied to earlier periods. I can go into a bit more detail I'd just like to know more of what you're looking for. Or you can pick up Halsall's book from Amazon and read it for yourself. It's well worth the price. As much detail as you're inclined to share? The Merovingian and Carolingian states are a big blank spot of history in my mind. I've picked up a few odds and ends skimming books in the library, for example Bachrach's, but I don't have a coherent picture of how armies and authority functioned during the Dark Ages. Maybe if you could point to a few differences between the Frankish army of 800 AD and a French army in 1200, I think things might make more sense for me. Added Hastall's book to my amazon wishlist, reading its introduction on Google books it seems exactly what I was asking for. Currently my mental picture of Continental Europe between 400 and 1400 looks like this: Romanized Germans fighting like Romans --> Barbarian Horde? --> Medieval noble cavalry and professional mercenaries What's the preferred nomenclature, btw, for the era formerly known as the Dark Ages? Early middle Ages? Alls I know is that name's a faux pas among serious historians today, but I can't for the life of me remember what name they prefer. Squalid fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I think the Germans bought into the whole Cult of the Offensive thing just as much as the French did so it would have been unthinkable for them to just wait and react. I dunno, their original plan was to hold in the east while quickly striking west. The east just turned into offensive because Prittwitz panicked, wanted to retreat to the Vistula (which Moltke had previously authorized him to do, if he was actually facing a overwhelming force), and got shitcanned. Hoffman and Ludendorff*, not being the 'fat idiot' they replaced, then pull off a devastating victory allowing the Central powers to advance. *Hindenburg as well if you don't accept Hoffman's version of events quote:A few years after the war, when touring the field at Tannenberg, Hoffmann told a group of army cadets "See - this is where Hindenburg slept before the battle, this is where Hindenburg slept after the battle, and this is where Hindenburg slept during the battle
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I dunno, their original plan was to hold in the east while quickly striking west. The east just turned into offensive because Prittwitz panicked, wanted to retreat to the Vistula (which Moltke had previously authorized him to do, if he was actually facing a overwhelming force), and got shitcanned. Hoffman and Ludendorff*, not being the 'fat idiot' they replaced, then pull off a devastating victory allowing the Central powers to advance. Hoffman was just bitter that Hindenburg/Ludendorff got all the glory for the plan that was originally his.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Hoffman was just bitter that Hindenburg/Ludendorff got all the glory for the plan that was originally his. So very, very bitter. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I honestly wonder if they could have done it if it weren't for their traipse through Belgium giving Britain an excuse to join in defending France. But that's wild and uneducated speculation. No. Britain would have found an excuse anyway since their whole foreign policy hinged on a balance of power on the Continent. Fun fact! France was going to violate Belgian neutrality but the Germans beat them to the punch!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
DasReich posted:Fun fact! France was going to violate Belgian neutrality but the Germans beat them to the punch! [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:[citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:As an aside, here's an interesting article on Tours. Seems sound to me. http://deremilitari.org/2013/09/the-battle-of-tours-poitiers-revisited/ There's some problems with their description of the Visigothic "kings" that followed Roderic (there's no actual proof Achila II was related to Witiza, much less that he was his son, although there's plenty of reason to think they may have been from the same power bloc, i.e. they were both opposed to Roderic), but that's only a minor issue. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
DasReich posted:No. Britain would have found an excuse anyway since their whole foreign policy hinged on a balance of power on the Continent. Fun fact! France was going to violate Belgian neutrality but the Germans beat them to the punch!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
wdarkk posted:Another fun thing was dealing with people who had escaped from the POW camps after the war ended. Remember that it's a duty of a soldier to try to escape when captured, so you can't charge them with any crime for escaping. I'm still catching up so this may have been addressed, but you can't charge them for escaping but you can charge them for crimes committed while escaping. Theft, assault, that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 16:06
|
|
