|
Genetic clusterbomb is a great expression. I have make note of that somewhere. Franz Joseph said that the line needs an infusion of new blood, lest all their future children will be retards or chronically sick, like all other Habsburgs (or god beware, the Romanovs). So I think aside from the standpoint of status he was glad that Franz Ferdinand married Sophie. When you say that the Austrian line doesn't look that bad, you've probably not been to many museums here or fell prey to the way that the portraits display a special version reality. They're either ugly, insane or dimwits. On rare occasions they're normal people, hinting, that their parents weren't related closely for a change. This is quite hot, isn't it? Especially the mouth. That and the look express something that I struggle to put in words. 
Power Khan fucked around with this message at 20:46 on May 16, 2014 |
#
?
May 16, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 01:31 |
|
|
I think I've seen and studied enough to make a judgment of them compared to other European rulers. Also the claim that they were halfwits is a plain falsehood.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
I thought part of the agreement with Franz Ferdinand marrying Sophie was that their children couldn't inherit
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
So, that statement was by Franz Ferdinand (not Franz Joseph) and went like this: „Wenn unsereiner jemand gern hat, findet sich immer im Stammbaum irgendeine Kleinigkeit, die die Ehe verbietet, und so kommt es, daß bei uns immer Mann und Frau zwanzigmal miteinander verwandt sind. Das Resultat ist, daß von den Kindern die Hälfte Trottel und Epileptiker sind.“ "If somebody like us likes someone, then there's always *some* triviality in the genealogy that prohibits marriage, so it follows that man and wife are twenty times related to each other. The result is that half of their children are dimwits or epileptics."
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I thought part of the agreement with Franz Ferdinand marrying Sophie was that their children couldn't inherit This is true, the marriage was deemed morganatic, and FF had to sign a document in which he made concessions on inheritance of his children (you can read them here: http://www.sophie-hohenberg-czech-rep.eu/ot/renonciation.php if you scroll down and click the images). By the way, the fate of FF's children is kind of interesting and worth at least a short browsing of the Wikipedia articles.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:And it made Bismark even smugger than he usually was too. Seriously, poor Napoleon III. The last thing he needed at Sedan was one of the smuggest 'I told you so son' speeches in military history. Anywhere I can read what Bismarck told Nap3?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:I presume we only count people who were actually heads of state at the time of the war? If so, I'd say maybe Nasser could get a shot, I remember reading that during the Suez Crisis he was seen in the streets himself handing out guns and organizing a last-ditch defence of Cairo from an expected Israeli advance. That advance never came, though. Comedy Mullah Mohammed Omar answer for sitting/de facto heads of state involved in combat.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Muammar Gaddafi might qualify, depending on whether you consider him a "head of state" at the time he was killed. It's a bit iffy considering he was on the run from the people who had just overthrown his government.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Muammar Gaddafi might qualify, depending on whether you consider him a "head of state" at the time he was killed. It's a bit iffy considering he was on the run from the people who had just overthrown his government. Was Gaddafi leading from the frontlines, or was he just running away from the rebels? Speaking of Africa, Charles Taylor did legitimately work with his troops and allies on a grass roots levels so he should count.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Actually, I thought of a serious answer- Haile Selassie of Ethiopia during the conflict in the 1930s with Fascist Italy. Haile Selassie took the field with the last Ethiopian army on the northern front. On 31 March 1936, he launched a counterattack against the Italians himself at the Battle of Maychew in southern Tigray. He was actually on the field at the battle and commanded the army. Wikipedia says "On 23 March, looking across a lush green valley towards the Italian positions at Maychew, the Emperor contemplated his decision to strike first." Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 23:37 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:ASB was never supposed to be directed specifically at China, nor was it supposed to be a doctrine (I don't know where you got the idea that it was supposed to replace Full Spectrum Operations). It was always supposed to be an operational concept that was geared towards combating adversaries inclined to employ A2/AD capabilities (the strongest of which just happens to be China) by fusing together existing platforms, capabilities, and doctrine in a new manner while developing the next generation of weapons systems in such a way that they were geared towards operating in an A2/AD environment. People who held up ASB like it was the second coming of Air-Land Battle in Western Europe were off the mark. Just because it's an operational concept that isn't tied to a particular threat doesn't mean that it isn't impacting acquisitions (it is) or that it isn't useful in dealing with potential threats (it is). It doesn't need to be a doctrine because we already have doctrine that deals with the areas ASB addresses (counterair/missile defense, countersea, sea control, etc). ASB is just a means of linking those doctrines together in new ways. Regarding ASB’s relationship to Full Spectrum Operations: Bending the unified land ops capability of the army toward COIN has preoccupied the defense community for almost 10 years. AirSea Battle is replacing full spectrum operations as the focus of the defense community and as a representation of US strategic priorities. Before 2012 it was very cool to walk around with War of the Flea. Now we have to start reading Mahan’s deep cuts. I agree ASB was not directed specifically at China any more than AirLand battle was directed at the Soviets. But I think the Navy and AF played up ASB’s relevance to the “pivot” for political reasons, which caused problems for ASB’s messaging. Personally, I think the original "misconceptions" about ASB were accurate. Everybody knows that ASB is primarily about the first island chain. Straight of Hormuz? Fine. But China A2/AD capabilities are of so many orders of magnitude greater than Iran’s. The same is true of the chances of going to war with China, and the consequences of doing so. Despite the military’s attempt to minimize the centrality of ASB, ASB is still THE principle US response to the strategic threat of the PLA, and the China-US strategic relationship is THE defining strategic relationship of the 21st century. Australia knows what a critical role ASB will play in future world events. Japan probably as well, and China sure as hell does. Supposedly there was a joke about ASB in the 2014 Spring Festival Gala. iyaayas01 posted:It was always supposed to be an operational concept that was geared towards combating adversaries inclined to employ A2/AD capabilities (the strongest of which just happens to be China) by fusing together existing platforms, capabilities, and doctrine in a new manner while developing the next generation of weapons systems in such a way that they were geared towards operating in an A2/AD environment. People who held up ASB like it was the second coming of Air-Land Battle in Western Europe were off the mark. Just because it's an operational concept that isn't tied to a particular threat doesn't mean that it isn't impacting acquisitions (it is) or that it isn't useful in dealing with potential threats (it is). It doesn't need to be a doctrine because we already have doctrine that deals with the areas ASB addresses (counterair/missile defense, countersea, sea control, etc). ASB is just a means of linking those doctrines together in new ways. I’d characterize doctrines as statements that facilitate joint arms execution of operational concepts. This distinguishes them from operational concepts like blockade or SEAD, which mostly (wild weasel word) coordinate the elements of a single service arm. Regarding scope I’ll reiterate: AirSea Battle being a limited concept without a specific strategic purpose I think is revisionism. ASB purpose is to establish sea control. Sea control is not an operation like an amphibious landing- it is an ongoing state of affairs that transcends any particular time or location in the battlespace. Applied to the western pacific ASB will prescribe close cooperation between the USN, USAF, and USMC. Based on my understanding of US doctrinal history, ASB is a doctrine. (A USNI definition of “operational concept” here. DOD Dictionary here.) iyaayas01 posted:If you are using your forces in a dumb traditional "high diddle diddle, straight up the middle" method, then no, you probably won't be survivable, but the whole point of ASB is to leverage other capabilities in a new, non-traditional manner so you aren't just sailing your CSG straight into a DF-21D ring and hoping for the best. iyaayas01 posted:Any intelligent discussion of these topics, particularly in regard to ASB, isn't going to take place in an open forum. Dilkington fucked around with this message at 01:40 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I'm not big on Great Man stuff, but Charles le Téméraire getting killed at Nancy hosed a lot of things up. JaucheCharly posted:This is quite hot, isn't it? Especially the mouth. That and the look express something that I struggle to put in words.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
The slight fuzz on his upper lip is very incongruous with his hair, maybe thats why.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:The slight fuzz on his upper lip is very incongruous with his hair, maybe thats why.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
Relevant question: What would you feel when Joseph II looks at you that way in a dimly lighted bar, while smooth Mozart is playing in the background? My wife just said "I don't know. His mouth is weird." I could feel the Sauerkraut stirring in her pockets.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
Its the line of the nose. I mean the mouth is a bit off but not too bad I don't think it would stick out too much on a normal face. But look at the nose carfulpy. Also his eyes don't really seem to match up.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 09:54
|
|
|
The nose is like some horrifying flesh atrocity every time I look at it now.
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:Its the line of the nose. I mean the mouth is a bit off but not too bad I don't think it would stick out too much on a normal face. But look at the nose carfulpy. Also his eyes don't really seem to match up. What are you even on about? The dude's nose looks like a nose, albeit one with a bit of a shadow under it. The only thing about the picture that looks a bit off from what you'd expect today is that he's wearing a gently caress load of makeup, which I'm guessing was just the style for whatever court he was knocking around in. Either that or the painter really liked to accentuate the red in lips and cheeks while making skin alabaster white. His eyes may very well be a little crooked, but then most peoples' are.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:What are you even on about? The dude's nose looks like a nose, albeit one with a bit of a shadow under it. The only thing about the picture that looks a bit off from what you'd expect today is that he's wearing a gently caress load of makeup, which I'm guessing was just the style for whatever court he was knocking around in. Either that or the painter really liked to accentuate the red in lips and cheeks while making skin alabaster white. And seriously, the dude looks fine especially for a Hapsburg, but goons gotta goon. Speaking of noses, this is Charles III of Spain, who was apparently really nice personally, but looked, well, Bourbon as all hell.  He was really cure as a kid though, before that schnozz took over. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Yeah, they wore makeup. Is he wielding a pimp cane?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
The king does what the king wants
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Is he wielding a pimp cane? That's a cigar. That guy looks like he knows how to have a good time. It's a drinker's nose. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Is he wielding a pimp cane? Batons have been a symbol of power for a long time. So basically, yeah.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Is he wielding a pimp cane? "Every soldier carries a marshall's baton in his pack." - Napoleon Bonaparte "Napoleon Bonaparte was a loving bully." - every French soldier seriously, imagine dragging that log to Moscow and back!!!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:
Good news, you won't have to take it all the way back!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:seriously, imagine dragging that log to Moscow and back!!! Should have taken a page out of Lenin's book.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Should've invented the tank to carry the logs.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
They would have dragged it from Moscow for 1/3rd of the retreat if it had gold or silver on it.
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:That's a cigar. That guy looks like he knows how to have a good time. It's a drinker's nose. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Why did cavalry start to prefer swords to lances?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
I don't think they ever really did, I imagine the rule for cavalry was to have both. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancer
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 22:09
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Hogge Wild posted:Why did cavalry start to prefer swords to lances? Did they? I know a lot of cav formations used variations on the lance through Napoleon and even into ww1. Then again just saying cavalry is a hugely broad term
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Why did cavalry start to prefer swords to lances? They never did. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
uPen posted:They never did. Why doesn't the horse get a gas mask!?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
IIRC the horse ones didn't work all that well anyway. E: turns out they might have if the horses didn't confuse them for feed bags and destroy them by trying to eat. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 23:23 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
On a related note, when did they stop using horse archers?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
The last of the great Khanates died in the 18th century I think, although horse archers had been rapidly losing effectiveness for a few centuries before that as gunpowder became more and more commonplace. edit: oh right but they were still used in North America right until all the natives got genocided. Were they at all effective at that point though?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
I doubt they were still in serious use in North American warfare by the natives. They had access to firearms, even if they didn't have the ability to manufacture them. Given the supply concerns, I imagine they world have used horse based archery in place of firearms for hunting though.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Koramei posted:The last of the great Khanates died in the 18th century I think, although horse archers had been rapidly losing effectiveness for a few centuries before that as gunpowder became more and more commonplace. Effective for what? It's a completely relative term. They did just fine hunting large game. They managed to hold their own pretty well against thinly-spread army assets in the pre-ACW muzzle loader days, and managed to score some really significant victories given the right setting and the right/wrong commander (on either side) well after that, although they were just as likely to be armed with firearms of their own at that point. Life isn't a game of Civilization. Groups of men don't always just flip over and die because what they're armed with is "obsolete"
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 01:31 |
|
|
Losing effectiveness is the wrong formulation. It was faded out, because the training regimen required for the heavy bows required to pierce increasingly better and cheaper armor was growing more and more demanding, while firearms start to appear more widespread. Horsemen fit to use such heavy bows are on par with the best olympic athletes (wrestlers and weight lifters), plus the skill it takes to shoot people from the back of a horse. You don't need to be a super athlete to fire a gun. If you die, another country bumpkin takes your place and is fit to fight within a few weeks. The decline of military archery starts around mid 16th century for the Ottoman Empire, their opponents in the east pick up firearms after getting mauled by them, but they imitate the Ottomans with their hybrid use of firearms (and most important artillery), bow and the laager. Cavalry gets less and less important, but the Ottomans learn that late. Horse archers continue to exist up to the 18th and 19th century as a niche weapon in various parts of the world, the indian subcontinent or Quing China. In that link that I posted back a few pages about Quing military examinations, you can see that it was still required in 1882. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 07:45 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 07:30
|
|