|
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 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 17:47 |
|
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 |
|
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
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 20:52 |
|
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, Cuitláhuac, was among those killed by smallpox. 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 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 grover fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Feb 15, 2014 |
# ? Feb 15, 2014 05:13 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
It was basically this, but with planks and pieces of obsidian.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 15:00 |
|
Ah, that makes sense, thanks.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 15:04 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Pimpmust posted:Obsidian basically works like a ceramic knife today. Sharp but very fragile. 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 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 |
|
Link that thread yo
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 20:35 |
|
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 |
|
Well, you know who else used obsidian? Ancient Egyptians. I'll leave mapping the
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 21:37 |
|
Obdicut posted:And it's in the history of America thread, starting around here: 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 |
|
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 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Imagine the terrible qualities of an obsidian hammer.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 22:31 |
|
Koramei posted:That Ask/Tell is so very judgmental towards D&D is kind of weird when like 3/4 of the posters overlap.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 22:35 |
|
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 |
|
That makes sense I supposeObdicut 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. 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 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 |
|
Koramei posted:That makes sense I suppose 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:Until the 18th. There's a bar called Rococo that's lit only by candlelight, that's cool. 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 17:47 |
|
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 |