Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

«‹›1137 »

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Agean90 posted:

Probably not, but im in an armored vehicle the gently caress are they gonna do about it?

Wait for you to either run out of gas, or get stuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson

# ? Feb 14, 2014 17:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 10:19

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

Saint Celestine posted:

Can you just buy a wheeled BTR in the states and just drive it around like no big deal?

If I've learned anything from Top Gear you'll have to put the armor box for carrying infantry on top of an already approved chassis.

# ? Feb 14, 2014 18:13

Arquinsiel: Jun 1, 2006; "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

God Bless Margaret Thatcher
God Bless England
RIP My Iron Lady

Agean90 posted:

Get a btr istead. Its wheeled so you dont have to get special permits or some poo poo. Gonna get one, pimp that poo poo out. Spinnin rims, smoke grenade launchers that shoot wads of 1 dollar bills, flamboyant paint job, the works. Gonna roll up on tha club like its Grozny blastin dubstep remakes of red army choir songs in a hail of money

There's one lying in a junkyard up in Drogheda for some reason. I haven't decided if I want to work out if I can afford it or not yet.

# ? Feb 14, 2014 20:52

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

PittTheElder posted:

Smallpox absolutely ravaged the Axtecs during 1520-1521, in the immediate aftermath of La Noche Triste. Perhaps 40-50% of the population died, either from the disease, or starvation following the failed harvest (which failed because smallpox incapacitated most of the farm labour). Moctezuma's successor, Cuitl�huac, was among those killed by smallpox.

Cortez didn't bring smallpox, though. Smallpox was introduced to the Americas by an African slave brought by Narvaez in a rival expedition that landed in April 1520, a year after Cortez' arrival (and that Cortez consequently defeated and incorporated into his own force). By that point, Cortez had already fought his way through half of Mexico and had held Montezuma captive for 5 months. The spread of Smallpox over the next year certainly played a major part in the siege of Tenochtitlan, but to handwave away the Conquistadors' military victories as nothing more than biological warfare does not give them due credit.

Cortez did not exactly bring the army people typically envision. It was a very small cadre of men, mostly armed with swords and spears.

Diaz posted:

ON the third day after our arrival at Cozumel, Cortes reviewed the
whole of his troops. Without counting the pilots and marines, our
number amounted to 508 men. There were 109 sailors, and sixteen
horses, which were trained equally for tournaments or for war. Our
squadron consisted of eleven vessels of different tonnage ; among these,
one was a kind of brigantine, the property of a certain Gines Nortes.
The number of crossbow men was thirty-three, and of musketeers
thirteen : add to this our heavy guns and four falconets, a great quan-
tity of powder and balls. As to the precise number of crossbow men
I cannot exactly swear, though it matters not whether there were a
few more or less.

Nor were the natives immediately prostrating at his feet and begging allegiance. Here's Diaz's account of one of the first large battles fought after Cortez landed in the Yucatan, at Tabasco:

Diaz posted:

THE Indians were already moving forward in search of us, when
we came up with them : every one had a large bunch of feathers on
his head, a cotton cuirass on, and their faces were daubed with white,
black, and red colours. Besides having drums and trumpets, they
were armed with huge bows and arrows, shields, lances, and large
broadswords* ; they had also bodies of slingers, and others armed *obsidian-edged
with poles hardened in the fire. The Indians were in such vast
numbers that they completely filled the bean fields, and immediately
fell upon us on all sides at once, like furious dogs. Their attack was
so impetuous, so numerous were the arrows, stones, and lances with
which they greeted us, that above seventy of our men were wounded
in no time, and one named Saldana, was struck by an arrow in the
ear, and instantly dropt down dead. With like fury they rushed at
us with their pikes, at the same time pouring forth showers of arrows,
and continually wounding our men. However, we fully repaid them
with our crossbows, muskets, and heavy cannon, cutting right and left
among them with our swords. By this means we forced them to give
ground a little, but only that they might shower forth their arrows
at a greater distance, where they thought themselves more secure from
our arms. Even then our artilleryman Mesa made terrible havoc
among them, standing as they did crowded together and within reach
of the cannon, so that he could fire among them to his heart's con-
tent. Notwithstanding the destruction we made among their ranks,
we could not put them to flight. I now remarked to our commander
Diego de Ordas that we should rush forward upon the Indians and
close with them. My motive for advising this was, because I saw that
they merely retreated from fear of our swords, but still continued
to annoy us at a distance with arrows, lances, and large stones. De
Ordas, however, considered this not expedient, as the enemy's num-
bers were so vast that every single man of us would have had to en-
counter 300 of the enemy at once.

My advice, however, was at length followed up, and we fell so hea-
vily upon them that they retreated as far as the wells. All this time
Cortes still remained behind with the cavalry, though we so greatly
longed for that reinforcement : we began to fear that some misfortune
might also have befallen him. I shall never forget the piping and
yelling which the Indians set up at every shot we fired, and how they
sought to hide their loss from us by tossing up earth and straw into
the air, making a terrible noise with their drums and trumpets, and
their war-whoop Ala lala. u

In one of these moments Cortes came galloping up with the horse.
Our enemies being still busily engaged with us, did not immediately
observe this, so that our cavalry easily dashed in among them from
behind. The nature of the ground was quite favorable for its
manoeuvres; and as it consisted of strong active fellows, most
of the horses being, moreover, powerful and fiery animals, our small
body of cavalry in every way made the best use of their weapons.
When we, who were already hotly engaged with the enemy, espied our
cavalry, we fought with renewed energy, while the latter, by attacking
them in the rear at the same time, now obliged them to face about.
The Indians, who had never seen any horses before, could not think
otherwise than that horse and rider were one body. Quite astounded
at this to them so novel a sight, they quitted the plain and retreated
to a rising ground.

Cortes now related why he had not come sooner. First, he had
been delayed by the morass ; then again he was obliged to fight his
way through other bodies of the enemy whom he had met, in which
five men and eight horses were wounded.

grover fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Feb 15, 2014

# ? Feb 15, 2014 05:13

Innocent_Bystander: May 17, 2012; Wait, missile production is my responsibility?

Oh.

Broadswords? I'll readily admit I know very little about the history of then and there, but I wasn't there the whole 'gold used instead of iron since they barely had any of the latter' issue? Or was that only further south?

# ? Feb 15, 2014 11:29

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

Innocent_Bystander posted:

Broadswords? I'll readily admit I know very little about the history of then and there, but I wasn't there the whole 'gold used instead of iron since they barely had any of the latter' issue? Or was that only further south?

I think you missed the little qualifier reading "obsidian-edged". If memory serves me right, those "swords" were more like planks of wood with razor-sharp edges thanks to the obsidian.

# ? Feb 15, 2014 14:51

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

It was basically this, but with planks and pieces of obsidian.

# ? Feb 15, 2014 15:00

Innocent_Bystander: May 17, 2012; Wait, missile production is my responsibility?

Oh.

Ah, that makes sense, thanks.

# ? Feb 15, 2014 15:04

Fangz: Jul 5, 2007; Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

There was a Discovery Channel programme which gives an idea of how effective these weapons are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBa1G12KyTM

# ? Feb 15, 2014 15:08

Pimpmust: Oct 1, 2008

Obsidian basically works like a ceramic knife today. Sharp but very fragile.

Would probably work rather well against the 95% of the spanish who weren't totting plate armor, but as that clip shows steel swords would do a number on the Obsidian as well.

# ? Feb 15, 2014 15:58

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Pimpmust posted:

Obsidian basically works like a ceramic knife today. Sharp but very fragile.

Would probably work rather well against the 95% of the spanish who weren't totting plate armor, but as that clip shows steel swords would do a number on the Obsidian as well.

The Aztec's obsidian swords were very effective, but so were the thick cotton curiasses the Spanish wore. The obsidian swords weren't nearly as durable as steel swords in the parry, but the biggest difference seems to be in tactics- the Spanish were out to wound/kill, while Diaz reports the Aztecs throughout much of the conquest were more interested in capturing victims to sacrifice. The Spanish report insane casualty figures, with every man reported wounded in some battles- but most of the wounds were presumably minor, as it does not seem to have taken many of them out of the fight for long (or at all), and Diaz does not speak of many Spanish dying of their wounds after the battles.

Not to mention, the Spanish took severe losses in earlier failed expeditions that preceded Cortez (many of his conquistadors were veterans of those expeditions), but got a lot of experience in the course of the campaign and became very adept at fighting Aztec weapons and tactics. However, most of the warriors facing them had no experience whatsoever against anything like the Spanish. The Spanish took terrible losses in some later battles where the natives had made the most of lessons learned by other groups and developed better tactics. Particularly against the horse.

grover fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Feb 15, 2014

# ? Feb 15, 2014 16:18

Koramei: Nov 11, 2011; I have three regrets
The first is to be born in Joseon.

Innocent_Bystander posted:

Broadswords? I'll readily admit I know very little about the history of then and there, but I wasn't there the whole 'gold used instead of iron since they barely had any of the latter' issue? Or was that only further south?

Also, they didn't not use iron 'cause it wasn't readily available; they didn't use iron 'cause obsidian is better than early bronzes (which were produced in the Americas), and people aren't gonna make leaps in metallurgical technology (to make better bronzes, then iron and steel) when they see no point to it. If most of the stone available in the ancient Near East and Europe wasn't completely crap, there's a good chance it'd never have been replaced there either.

# ? Feb 15, 2014 17:51

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Koramei posted:

Also, they didn't not use iron 'cause it wasn't readily available; they didn't use iron 'cause obsidian is better than early bronzes (which were produced in the Americas), and people aren't gonna make leaps in metallurgical technology (to make better bronzes, then iron and steel) when they see no point to it. If most of the stone available in the ancient Near East and Europe wasn't completely crap, there's a good chance it'd never have been replaced there either.

We just got into this in another thread, but no, this isn't a sufficient explanation. There's plenty of obsidian in Greece, too. The reasons why metallurgy developed the way it did in various places is highly contingent on a lot of different stuff, and is really interesting but it's not just availability of materials. It's why Milos was such an important trade island in the Mediterranean, it's huge obsidian resources.

# ? Feb 15, 2014 19:31

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Obsidian is not very common in mesoamerica, either and only found at a relatively small number of locations. Due to the chemical signatures specific to each quarry, it's actually been pretty important in mapping trade and trade routes.

# ? Feb 15, 2014 19:49

Koramei: Nov 11, 2011; I have three regrets
The first is to be born in Joseon.

Hm I'm not sure I agree that it wasn't at least the principal factor (in the Americas, me throwing the Old World in was dumb :v:

) but I'll read that thread, it looks like people are challenging a couple of other things I'd always assumed weren't really contested.

# ? Feb 15, 2014 20:25

Rabhadh: Aug 26, 2007

Link that thread yo

# ? Feb 15, 2014 20:35

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Koramei posted:

Hm I'm not sure I agree that it wasn't at least the principal factor (in the Americas, me throwing the Old World in was dumb )

But that's the whole argument: you're saying that they had obsidian, which is pretty cool, and it's better than early bronze, so they didn't develop bronze. Greece--and the whole area around there--also has obsidian, so it's not a sufficient explanation for why one civilization developed bronze and the other didn't: it isn't even a possible influence, since both civilizations had obsidian.

And it's in the history of America thread, starting around here:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3577206&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=31

# ? Feb 15, 2014 21:28

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

Well, you know who else used obsidian? Ancient Egyptians. I'll leave mapping the ~~landing~~ pyramid sites to you. :tinfoil:

# ? Feb 15, 2014 21:37

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Obdicut posted:

And it's in the history of America thread, starting around here:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3577206&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=31

Ugh, that thread is painful to read. There's a way better thread about mesoamerican history here in A/T: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3497724

Also, the Aztecs and Maya had metal tools and the wheel, they just chose not to use them. (Lack of pack animals is a poor explanation; even a simple wheelbarrow is a huge labor multiplier, and not challenging to build.) The Spanish unfortunately destroyed most of the records that would have helped explain why the mesoamericans chose not to use the wheel or metal tools, but I've read at least one source that believes they were eschewed for religious reasons.

grover fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Feb 15, 2014

# ? Feb 15, 2014 21:37

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

grover posted:

Ugh, that thread is painful to read. There's a way better thread about mesoamerican history here in A/T: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3497724

Also, the Aztecs and Maya had metal tools and the wheel, they just chose not to use them. (Lack of pack animals is a poor explanation; even a simple wheelbarrow is a huge labor multiplier.) The Spanish unfortunately destroyed most of the records that would have helped explain why the mesoamericans chose not to use the wheel or metal tools, but I've read at least one source that believes they were eschewed for religious reasons.

Yeah, that's the claim I mention in the 'painful thread, that there were cultural reasons. I agree that Diamond's pack animal explanation is not a sufficient one, and that definitive answers are largely not reachable due to record destruction and lack of continuity between those civilizations and modern ones.

I shouldn't have said they didn't develop bronze, that was just dumb. What I meant was they didn't use bronze in large-scale applications in the same way, or have the same sort of production chain.

# ? Feb 15, 2014 21:44

Koramei: Nov 11, 2011; I have three regrets
The first is to be born in Joseon.

That Ask/Tell is so very judgmental towards D&D is kind of weird when like 3/4 of the posters overlap.

Obdicut posted:

But that's the whole argument: you're saying that they had obsidian, which is pretty cool, and it's better than early bronze, so they didn't develop bronze. Greece--and the whole area around there--also has obsidian, so it's not a sufficient explanation for why one civilization developed bronze and the other didn't: it isn't even a possible influence, since both civilizations had obsidian.

Yeah except Greece didn't develop bronze, they acquired that technology from people elsewhere; people elsewhere that didn't have such ready access to obsidian.

grover posted:

The Spanish unfortunately destroyed most of the records that would have helped explain why the mesoamericans chose not to use the wheel or metal tools, but I've read at least one source that believes they were eschewed for religious reasons.

Does that make sense even though bronze has been found all up and down the pacific coast, i.e. places whose beliefs were surely massively different?

edit: also someone should bump that mesoamerican history thread, I've been meaning to finish reading it and it's gonna get archived in like less than a month.

Koramei fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Feb 15, 2014

# ? Feb 15, 2014 21:52

Schenck v. U.S.: Sep 8, 2010

grover posted:

Also, the Aztecs and Maya had metal tools and the wheel, they just chose not to use them. (Lack of pack animals is a poor explanation; even a simple wheelbarrow is a huge labor multiplier, and not challenging to build.)

And yet we run into historical situations such as the Romans having knowledge of the wheel and of course commonly using wheeled vehicles like carts and chariots, but not wheelbarrows. Or at least leaving no record of using them, in spite of their engineering genius.

Did the Aztecs perhaps fail to use the wheel for practical purposes because Tenochtitlan was an island in lake Texcoco and transportation around the immediate area was most efficient by canoe?

# ? Feb 15, 2014 21:57

champagne posting: Apr 5, 2006; YOU ARE A BRAIN
IN A BUNKER

EvanSchenck posted:

Did the Aztecs perhaps fail to use the wheel for practical purposes because Tenochtitlan was an island in lake Texcoco and transportation around the immediate area was most efficient by canoe?

Wouldn't explain why the rest of the mesoamerican civilizations didn't either.

It could be that wheelbarrows just don't lend themselves very well to keeping for longer than a couple of hundred years.

# ? Feb 15, 2014 22:03

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Koramei posted:

That Ask/Tell is so very judgmental towards D&D is kind of weird when like 3/4 of the posters overlap.

Yeah except Greece didn't develop bronze, they acquired that technology from people elsewhere; people elsewhere that didn't have such ready access to obsidian.

The Aztecs, on the other hand, did develop bronze, they just didn't build up a big bronze technology and industry thing. And who are the people who invented bronze who didn't have access to obsidian, please? To the best of my knowledge, Turkey is vaguely waved around as bronze-development central, and they also had obsidian.

# ? Feb 15, 2014 22:04

Koramei: Nov 11, 2011; I have three regrets
The first is to be born in Joseon.

The Aztecs didn't develop Bronze, they also got it from other people who had made it before; it had been around in Mesoamerica for the better part of a thousand years by the time the Spanish arrived. That they didn't develop it further, but rather used obsidian, was the entire point of my original post (incidentally I said they had bronze in that post).

And Mesopotamia, China, Persia, Serbia/Romania. And the chalcolithic weapons and tools that I've seen (e.g. Sumer and pre/early-dynastic period Egypt) are near universally flint or copper, where are you getting this idea that obsidian was so readily available? That it was available isn't to say it was common.

# ? Feb 15, 2014 22:18

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Koramei posted:

The Aztecs didn't develop Bronze, they also got it from other people who had made it before; it had been around in Mesoamerica for the better part of a thousand years by the time the Spanish arrived. That they didn't develop it further, but rather used obsidian, was the entire point of my original post (incidentally I said they had bronze in that post).

Okay. So you're comparing two civilizations, neither of whom developed bronze, both of whom got it from somewhere else, and both of whom had access to obsidian.

And your explanation for the widespread use of bronze in one for practical purposes vs. the other is that they had access to obsidian.

But both civilizations had access to obsidian.

quote:

And Mesopotamia, China, Persia, Serbia/Romania. And the chalcolithic weapons and tools that I've seen (e.g. Sumer and pre/early-dynastic period Egypt) are near universally flint or copper, where are you getting this idea that obsidian was so readily available? That it was available isn't to say it was common.

Colin Renfrew and Malcolm Wagstaff.

Also, obsidian is not a good thing for most tools. It's good for blades, it's bad for pretty much anything else. So this whole conversation is a bit odd because bronze and obsidian compete in only one domain: blades. In terms of fasteners, bars, hinges, bolts, rings, armor, etc. etc., obsidian doesn't even enter into the conversation.

Obdicut fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Feb 15, 2014

# ? Feb 15, 2014 22:27

champagne posting: Apr 5, 2006; YOU ARE A BRAIN
IN A BUNKER

Imagine the terrible qualities of an obsidian hammer.

# ? Feb 15, 2014 22:31

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Koramei posted:

That Ask/Tell is so very judgmental towards D&D is kind of weird when like 3/4 of the posters overlap.

The SJWs Are Your Misfortune

# ? Feb 15, 2014 22:35

Fangz: Jul 5, 2007; Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

Koramei posted:

That Ask/Tell is so very judgmental towards D&D is kind of weird when like 3/4 of the posters overlap.

The problem with D&D isn't the posters, it's the tone of the conversation.

# ? Feb 15, 2014 22:42

Koramei: Nov 11, 2011; I have three regrets
The first is to be born in Joseon.

That makes sense I suppose

Obdicut posted:

Okay. So you're comparing two civilizations, neither of whom developed bronze, both of whom got it from somewhere else, and both of whom had access to obsidian.

And your explanation for the widespread use of bronze in one for practical purposes vs. the other is that they had access to obsidian.

But both civilizations had access to obsidian.

Colin Renfrew and Malcolm Wagstaff.

Yeah, at this point we're basically just disagreeing on how widespread obsidian actually was. I was always under the impression it was relatively ubiquitous in Mesoamerica (as corroborated by this extremely detailed and no doubt time period-accurate map), but historical obsidian distribution isn't a subject I've dedicated much time to reading about so maybe I am wrong on that point. Now that I realise my point of view is real controversial I might start.

Also we're comparing regions here, not civilizations :spergin:

quote:

Also, obsidian is not a good thing for most tools. It's good for blades, it's bad for pretty much anything else. So this whole conversation is a bit odd because bronze and obsidian compete in only one domain: blades. In terms of fasteners, bars, hinges, bolts, rings, armor, etc. etc., obsidian doesn't even enter into the conversation.

Crappy early arsenic-based bronze isn't good for tools either; in fact the only thing it's good for really is holding a better edge than flint or copper.

This conversation is pretty odd though.

# ? Feb 15, 2014 23:22

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Koramei posted:

That makes sense I suppose

Yeah, at this point we're basically just disagreeing on how widespread obsidian actually was. I was always under the impression it was relatively ubiquitous in Mesoamerica (as corroborated by this extremely detailed and no doubt time period-accurate map), but historical obsidian distribution isn't a subject I've dedicated much time to reading about so maybe I am wrong on that point. Now that I realise my point of view is real controversial I might start.

It was imported to Egypt pre-Bronze age, so yeah, it was also widespread in the Mediterranean. Can I ask why you thought it was more widespread and ubiquitous in mesoamerica?

# ? Feb 15, 2014 23:36

maev: Dec 6, 2010; Economically illiterate Tory Boy Bollocks brain.
Keep away from children

Fangz posted:

The problem with D&D isn't the posters, it's the tone of the conversation.

Debate and discussion tends to happen better outside of Debate and Discussion, minus the shouty marxist angst.

# ? Feb 16, 2014 00:38

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

But seriously, it's really great to be told by someone who just attended a history class at the college level that we should not read Jefferson because he was a racist or Locke because he owned land, and that parliamentary democracy is bad because it prevents the will of the people from making policy unimpeded. Listening to that stuff never gets old.

# ? Feb 16, 2014 00:59

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:

But seriously, it's really great to be told by someone who just attended a history class at the college level that we should not read Jefferson because he was a racist or Locke because he owned land, and that parliamentary democracy is bad because it prevents the will of the people from making policy unimpeded. Listening to that stuff never gets old.

The DnD American History thread just had a great derail on why the question of human agency shouldn't be studied in history man. Because that's like blaming the victim.

# ? Feb 16, 2014 01:46

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:

Until the 18th. There's a bar called Rococo that's lit only by candlelight, that's cool.

Here are some more things.

Climbing the bell tower next to the civic hall is cool--there are 17th and 18th century bells on display, an automatic bell-ringing machine (the first one they had dated from the 1300s, although this one is 19th century) and a metal dragon which had once been displayed on the tower and was used in fireworks displays. (Gunners were in charge of that, by the way. In the 18th century, they'd get extra pay for doing it; don't know about earlier.) There's a video on how to cast bells, which is more or less also how you cast bronze cannon, so that's a must-see. Don't do this unless you are not afraid of heights; the staircase is narrow and has tiny stairs. If you are, take the elevator.

Van Eyck's Ghent Altarpiece is missing a panel. They knew who stole it, but he died before he could tell anyone where he hid it. I almost prefer the story to having the real panel (the missing panel, the lower left, is now a repro).

The prettiest street is made up of houses transported to that place for the purpose for the 1913 World's Fair. The houses are real, the view kind of isn't.

St Michael's Church is the only large medieval/early modern brick church I've seen in person. Above one of the side doors to the right, near the part with the altar in it, there's an arrowslit which has had a hole cut in it to stick a hook gun through, and a horizontal line to sight it. (Also there's a Van Dyck crucifixion, if you care about that sort of thing. The arrowslit is much cooler.)

More Spanish restaurants than you'd think. Maybe not though--I think they were loyalists.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Feb 16, 2014

# ? Feb 16, 2014 02:33

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

maev posted:

Debate and discussion tends to happen better outside of Debate and Discussion, minus the shouty marxist angst.

Keep talking trash and I'll deliver all the angst you can handle mother fucker

lf for lyfe bitch

Its amazing the chauvinism this forum generates, every subforum thinks itself better than every other.

On the subject of obsidian and technological development, can we rule out randomness as the cause of this variation between regions? Especially when we are talking about a single technology, like the wheelbarrow, there's no reason to assume it couldn't have developed in any particular place possessing the necessary precursors.

Archeologists studying material cultures often use the assumption that culture spreads through a process of darwinian selection. It is not a perfect analogy, but it is useful. Now if everyone can forgive me for a moment, I'm going to indulge in a little theoretical speculation, well beyond my qualifications.

The Columbian exchange wasn't the first case in which destructive invaders displaced the inhabitants of the Americas. In the Great American Interchange, which occurred after Panama rose from the sea and united North and South America, the inhabitants of North America proved far more successful than their South American counterparts, many of whom were driven to extinction.

One theory for this asymmetrical colonization is that the Neartic fauna were the product of a larger, more competitive, evolutionary system, including North America, Eurasia, and North Africa. Larger populations generally produce a larger number of genetic mutations than equivalent smaller populations. If that is the case, can we expect a similar difference in the production of cultural innovations, assuming they propagate in a darwinian fashion, between large and small human populations?

This idea has been floating around my head for a while, but I haven't put it together before. Does it seem coherent or is it just nonsensical rambling? Anybody want citations for my claims?

# ? Feb 16, 2014 03:34

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

Squalid posted:

One theory for this asymmetrical colonization is that the Neartic fauna were the product of a larger, more competitive, evolutionary system, including North America, Eurasia, and North Africa. Larger populations generally produce a larger number of genetic mutations than equivalent smaller populations. If that is the case, can we expect a similar difference in the production of cultural innovations, assuming they propagate in a darwinian fashion, between large and small human populations?

This idea's been around for a while. I think Jared Diamond touched on it in Guns, Germs, and Steel, maybe I'm thinking of a different author, but we definitely covered the concept in an anthropology class. The basic idea is clear - places with more opportunities for innovation have more innovation. A lot of "European" technology built off of things that gradually propagated over from China. A lot of Mesoamerican technology was dismissed as useless and went to waste after the Spanish conquest. Another idea relates to the function of ritualized warfare and how you're going to see killing technology develop very different based on whether the goal is to kill the enemy or capture prisoners for ransom or sacrifice.

# ? Feb 16, 2014 03:41

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Back to history, for a moment: are there any photographs or daguerreotypes of the US civil war or other contemporary mid-19th century battles? Not the aftermath, camp, or staged photos, but photos actually taken during the battle, showing motion blur of troops fighting, clouds of smoke, etc? The no-poo poo lines of battle, etc?

# ? Feb 16, 2014 03:58

gohuskies: Oct 23, 2010; I spend a lot of time making posts to justify why I'm not a self centered shithead that just wants to act like COVID isn't a thing.

grover posted:

Back to history, for a moment: are there any photographs or daguerreotypes of the US civil war or other contemporary mid-19th century battles? Not the aftermath, camp, or staged photos, but photos actually taken during the battle, showing motion blur of troops fighting, clouds of smoke, etc? The no-poo poo lines of battle, etc?

Battle of Sedan, 1870:

# ? Feb 16, 2014 04:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 10:19

Slim Jim Pickens: Jan 16, 2012

The assumption that "culture" (nebulous and multifaceted as it is) develops in a darwinian fashion is a gigantic leap of faith.

You can learn how to use a wheelbarrow, or an iPhone in a day. Organisms that have evolved in exclusion for millions of years can't adapt even in a lifespan.

I think you're slightly misunderstanding evolution as well. It's not the rate of mutation that causes species to evolve, it's the environment that they are trying to adapt to. Everything mutates at the same rate, but environmental selection is what decides the which mutations are going to stay. Larger populations just mean that there is more competition, intraspecial and otherwise, which accelerates the selection of distinct individuals.

Another problem is your larger population theory. Mesoamerica had a huuuuge population. Terrace farming was very productive, and the Incan empire was prosperous. The Aztecs and their client states ran maize fields that made Tenochtitlan a loving giant city that nobody in Spain could even conceive.

# ? Feb 16, 2014 04:09

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

«‹›1137 »