|
Egypt was much more a linear realm anyway - from the delta to the first cataract.
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
I'm not particularly sure the Egyptians thought of their borders as narrowly defined as we do. They lived in a desert, with few features that could lend themselves to mark a border, so their definition was probably "whatever the guards on our border fortresses can see and patrol" rather than a line in the sand, with one side being Egypt and the other being not. The first example of that would probably be the Roman Limes and the Hadrian's Wall on the border to Scotland. There is some good historiography for the Early Modern Era, showing that people living in border regions often had no idea that the people the next village over where any different than them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
The modern definition of border only starts to make sense when you have modern cartography, mind you. Before that, you tended to get stuff like well-defined borders because there's a river or a big defensive ditch or whatever but only in areas where the population is dense enough for that to make sense, but in areas where the population density is lower, the actual border is almost non-existent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
You guys seem to have a romanticized notion of the past. Land surveying is something that is older than history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:You guys seem to have a romanticized notion of the past. Land surveying is something that is older than history. Accurate land surveys on a larger scale are a fairly new thing though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:You guys seem to have a romanticized notion of the past. Land surveying is something that is older than history. But not cartography
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:You guys seem to have a romanticized notion of the past. Land surveying is something that is older than history. Yes, and the land survey of Austria from 18th century manages to get even rivers flowing into completely different directions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:When did borders that are actually fenced and possibly actively policed come about? Like, when nations started to identify as shapes on a (mostly accurate) map, how and when were the first physical borders implemented? When a group of apes attacked another group that got too close to their tree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
"Borders" meaning defined areas in which some authority exercised power are about as old as civilization. The borders were just a lot more vague though; for good examples look at the legal documents which define the fiefs and so on in medieval Europe. While there were "borders", they were very flexible, sometimes shared, etc. It wasn't until modern cartography became a thing that a hard-defined border became possible. As a result I kind of buy into the hypothesis that the modern nation-state was essentially a product of advances in mapmaking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
bewbies posted:"Borders" meaning defined areas in which some authority exercised power are about as old as civilization. The borders were just a lot more vague though; for good examples look at the legal documents which define the fiefs and so on in medieval Europe. While there were "borders", they were very flexible, sometimes shared, etc. Or maybe mapmaking improved because people started to think of a state as something that occupied a certain territory, rather than ruled over a certain people (wherever they may live).
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
The first Russo-Swedish treaty defining a land border between Sweden and the Novgorod republic was signed in 1323 and it predates proper maps of Finland. Most of the border ran through then unpopulated wilderness and it's not known anymore for sure where it ran there - inner Finland is a maze of lakes and rivers with similar names, and was unimportant anyway compared to the coast areas where the good farmland was. The end of border raids caused Finnish settlers to move to the now calm-ish wilderness, which in turn made inner Finland desirable to the Swedish crown for tax income. The problem was, settlers didn't like paying taxes and didn't give a poo poo about this 'border'. Cue Swedes building castles in the middle of this wilderness (Uleåborg and Olofsborg), on the Russian side of the border of course. Swedes naturally went all "what no, this is our side of the border honestly, look I have here an authentic copy of the original treaty" so the peace didn't last too long.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Gladi posted:Yes, and the land survey of Austria from 18th century manages to get even rivers flowing into completely different directions. To be fair, most likely the people of the 18th century conducting the land survey just didn't know rivers and river branches could move around. (Or they didn't take it into account, or didn't update their maps fast enough, who knows?) Ongoing erosion and siltation could move even larger rivers around a lot. I could imagine some smaller branches of rivers even reversing their flow when their wandering connected them to a larger river flowing in a different direction. So this could have happened. Today with canals here and fortified river banks there, this doesn't happen as much. Well, at least in Germany: Even most smaller rivers are far to controlled now to do much wandering anymore. On the Northsea coast this phenomenon is still making itself a headache: Halligen and islands like Sylt are either slowly being grind down or are slowly moved around, due to the same processes. (In the case of Sylt, it's just erosion. If you're interested, Wikipedia has an entire section in the Sylt-article about the ongoing efforts to combat the effects of erosion on the island's coast.) As a more thread-relevant example: This is one of the reasons why both sieges of my old hometown Nienburg during the Thiry Years War were such a nightmare for the Catholics: Today Nienburg sits on the northern plains, surrounded by forest. During the 17th century, all that land was swamp land, with lots of small rivers everywhere. One of the effects of this was: During the first siege, the city had not much trouble moving supplies around the siege force and what they couldn't get, they got by making sallies against the Catholics and stealing from Tilly's army. Without Tilly essentially sitting in a hostile swamp with hostile natives all around him, this wouldn't have been possible, since the Danish mercenaries and the city milita would have been to badly outnumbered for an open conflict. Too bad the first siege exhausted and nearly destroyed Nienburg by itself. By the time a subordinate of Tilly came around for round two, the city wasn't capable of resisting another lengthy siege. Libluini fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jun 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
If I recall right one of the earliest surviving summerian stuff is about going to war because of border stones. It might be the Stele of Vultures now that I come to think about it. So there's that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
mastervj posted:If I recall right one of the earliest surviving summerian stuff is about going to war because of border stones. It might be the Stele of Vultures now that I come to think about it. The Sumerians were no strangers to the whole "this is our land" concept. The city states of Lagash and Umma were arguing over who should control a certain irrigation canal; although the treaty awarded it to Lagash, Umma decided to take it by force. After Lagash won, they put up that Stele up on the border with a picture of them kicking the Ummite's asses, in hopes that they would respect the border. It didn't work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Plenty of border areas before modern cartography were poorly defined. The type of in-between border march regions mentioned did exist, and they're one of my favorite things to learn about. However, borders as surveyed, invisible lines that are shapes on a map and policed as such by states who think of themselves as shapes on a map are not a recent innovation, and that is what the original question seemed to be assuming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:However, borders as surveyed, invisible lines that are shapes on a map and policed as such by states who think of themselves as shapes on a map are not a recent innovation...
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I think the Holy Roman Empire is more of a state of mind, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:The Holy Roman Empire was like being so hungover you can't make yourself any breakfast, and also you're wearing a fancy hat. Ask Us About Military History: Here Be Dragoons (and fancy hats)
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 00:25
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Ask Us About Military History: Here Be Dragoons (and fancy hats) I semi-jokingly want to hear a post about the evolution of hats in the military - how and why we went from, for instance, landsknecht caps to big ol' cavalier hats to tricornes and bicornes to shakos and kepis and peaked caps and whatnot. Edit: Like, I know tricornes partially developed the way they did to help channel rainwater falling on a soldier's head. How and why did they go from that practical development to the shako? Tomn fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Jun 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
Fashion is a scam
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I semi-jokingly want to hear a post about the evolution of hats in the military - how and why we went from, for instance, landsknecht caps to big ol' cavalier hats to tricornes and bicornes to shakos and kepis and peaked caps and whatnot. Yes please? Seriously: I've always been interested in what one might call the "Speculative fiction" of uniforms - IE, trying to figure out what they'd look like in the future, acknowledging that most sci-fi uniforms (HI STAR TREK) suck as actual uniforms. (My current big timekilling project is to redesign Trek uniforms from the ground up, for a Post-Nemesis RPG I'm involved in. Similarly, I'm *also* trying to design uniforms for an "Ender's Game"-universe RPG...And before you ask, no, I can't draw. (The RPGs involved are all-text.) I would gleefully ask for help, but don't exactly have the  to get the ability to PM or the like...)May as well figure out what's been tried before if I'm to usefully figure out where they're going.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
I think the main reason why the Shako replaced the tricorn hat was giving off the appearince your soldier were all Grenadier-esqe levels of height and your elite were giants. And please do. We don't obsess over uniforms and headgear in this thread. Behold and quake in the presence of a fancy military hat!  I still sort of like the humble British Stovepipe shako myself.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:Yes please? Didn't Enterprise have decent looking Uniforms that looked evolved from NASA uniforms?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
I'm sure that once you get past some immediate protective issues and into the realm of purely decorative head-ware that a lot of it just has to do with whatever's fashionable at the time. I also suspect - although I have zero evidence for this - that there is probably a command and control element to it as well. It's got to be easier to spot a bunch of guys on a battlefield all hosed up with dust and black powder smoke if they have 2 foot tall hats on with brightly colored pom poms projecting even higher above that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I think the main reason why the Shako replaced the tricorn hat was giving off the appearince your soldier were all Grenadier-esqe levels of height and your elite were giants. I always thought that bearskin hats were really heavy, but Wikipedia says that they only weigh 1.5 pounds. edit: What's that "70" hat called? Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jun 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
I think is a French Garrison cap for infantry or cavalry. Not too sure. Also, shako plates and badges look pretty nifty. Especially with the Imperial Cyphers.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I think is a French Garrison cap for infantry or cavalry. Not too sure. It looks a bit like the karpus hat.   
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:being so hungover you can't make yourself any breakfast, and also you're wearing a fancy hat.  Take a look at the drinking dude at the far left. He's shoved his hat off, and you can see his little metal skullcap. It's like a helmet, but it's invisible under the big plumed hat, so you can protect yourself while remaining fashion forward. Edit: I would bet money he's so hungover he can't make breakfast; he just lost the Battle of Marignano. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Jun 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I'm sure that once you get past some immediate protective issues and into the realm of purely decorative head-ware that a lot of it just has to do with whatever's fashionable at the time. And even protective stuff gets tailored according to contemporary fashions. I visited the Musee de Armee a few weeks ago and it was kinda funny to see steel armor worked to look like it was "puffed and slashed" (a popular men's fashion in the 1500s). Cyrano4747 posted:I also suspect - although I have zero evidence for this - that there is probably a command and control element to it as well. It's got to be easier to spot a bunch of guys on a battlefield all hosed up with dust and black powder smoke if they have 2 foot tall hats on with brightly colored pom poms projecting even higher above that. There is some evidence for this. Each company in a British line regiment wore uniquely-colored colored plume on their shako. An officer or a sergeant could tell at a glance which company was which.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Didn't Enterprise have decent looking Uniforms that looked evolved from NASA uniforms? Those got lost in the shitshow that was everything else on Enterprise. Also the only good star trek uniforms were the ones from The Wrath of Khan  .
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 00:47
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Also the only good star trek uniforms were the ones from The Wrath of Khan Those seriously need to be adopted by someone's navy, they owned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Those seriously need to be adopted by someone's navy, they owned. They were by the Napoleonic British 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Reposting my favorite piece of military-related art: Is that guy's spear that's slung over his shoulder so long that it reaches all the way to the burning town behind him?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Is that guy's spear that's slung over his shoulder so long that it reaches all the way to the burning town behind him? Have a little perspective, it was a different time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Is that guy's spear that's slung over his shoulder so long that it reaches all the way to the burning town behind him? I think it is to represent that the stuff behind him are the memories he is trying to lose with his drinking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Oh no, they wrecked the drum! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:I think it is to represent that the stuff behind him are the memories he is trying to lose with his drinking.  Unlike Graf, this piece looks very medieval. The difference isn't that Graf's been exposed to more Classical influence, or not directly; I read an art historian say that he never was (which surprised me). The difference is that Graf is obsessed with Dürer. Edit: Speaking of Graf, check this out.  Most of Graf's subjects were other mercenaries and military women, people he probably knew personally and saw every day. We know some of his pieces were gifts, because they have messages on them for the recipients. I think the genesis of this piece went like this. Graf to Hure: "Hey. Hey. Hey!" Hure to Graf: "What?" "Your dog's small." "I know he's small, it's why I bought him." (giggles to self) "Here, hold on. I'm making something for you." Dirne führt eine Maus spazieren, 1529 HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Reposting my favorite piece of military-related art: You know, there is one of these skullcaps at the HGM. The dude wears it right under his Schlapphut
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Didn't Enterprise have decent looking Uniforms that looked evolved from NASA uniforms? Enterprise's uniforms were decent, but were missing something important: They didn't project the "air of authority" a military uniform (IMHO) needs to in order to work. They looked, as it were, too civilian. The TOS-movie uniforms (from Wrath of Khan to TUC), by contrast, were military enough, but looked more fitting for a dress uniform, not a duty uniform, and hence failed the "practicality test". I'll quote here from the document where I laid down my thoughts once, a compilation of posts to a Trek web forum mixed with stuff for some Trek RPGs I'm on - the []'d stuff was written as "margin notes", commenting on the original document. "The idea behind these redesigned Class Bs is that they are (in no particular order): A. More practically designed; B. Harken back in various ways to wet navies and/or the early spaceflight organizations; C. Lend the air of authority a uniform should; D. Look like they're meant for a (para)military organization, with the need for rapid identification and the like. Notice that I did not include 'Look cool'. This isn't because I don't want all these to look cool! I do! But uniforms that meet criteria A-D will tend to look cool sort of naturally. [I've had extensive conversations about how, if you're designing uniforms for sci-fi, they ought to at least look cool. Coolness is defined differently by virtually everyone, I know that. But you should stretch for it. This paragraph is my 'How to achieve a cool uniform without trying very hard'.]" (By redesigned and "more practically designed", I was comparing them to the duty uniforms seen from TNG forward (in in-universe chronology terms, so excluding Enterprise). By duty uniforms, I'm referring (as the terminology hints) to what the US Army once called "Class Bs", the uniform used for daily office/classroom use, and for shipboard positions where you aren't likely to get too dirty or something - so most of the positions we see on TV, particularly for senior staff.) This is where I swear at my lack of available (and not-previously-allocated) money, because if I had PMs I'd PM those interested (or ask them to PM me, more precisely), get email addresses, and email the .doc file to help the conversation - I've considered posting to Google Drive and sharing the link, but don't want to link my identity here with my RL identity. Oh well. If someone has a clue how to avoid the identity-linking issue (besides creating an all-new Google Drive account), let me know?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
Spacewolf posted:Enterprise's uniforms were decent, but were missing something important: They didn't project the "air of authority" a military uniform (IMHO) needs to in order to work. They looked, as it were, too civilian. I really don't want to derail this too badly into trek nerd debate so I'll keep this short, but I think you're way off the mark here. The whole point of Starfleet is that they aren't a fully militarized organization. Sure, they have certain military duties that they preform, yes they use a rank structure, and yes militaristic aspect increasingly become the focus of the show and movies, but that's more of a function of what a 1990s-2000s American audience (and Berman) wanted to see than what the organization was written as originally. Starfleet, as originally explained in ToS and later reiterated in early TNG (i.e. the years most influenced by Roddenberry) was supposed to be a mostly exploration, science, and diplomacy-oriented organization with a military aspect that existed more as a fall back position and recognition of the dangers inherent in what amounted to a frontier setting. You're on the mark when you talk about the ToS/TNG uniforms being loving abysmal from the "be a daily wear uniform" standpoint, but completely off track with the criticism of Enterprise's outfits being too civilian. They're supposed to look non-threatening. The other point I'd make is to look at actual historical photos of men at work in various navies, especially for enlisted crew members. The outfits tend to look like civilian mechanic's outfits if anything, and are among the less-military looking outfits you'll find. If you want to emphasize Trek's nautical tradition a simple work outfit for the people doing work and maybe something fancier for the bridge staff makes more sense. edit: to bring this around a bit more to the purpose of this thread, it's important to remember that Star Trek, at least as originally written and conceived, is profoundly the cultural product of the WW2 generation and the "Silent Generation" that followed immediately after but which was old enough to remember the war as kids. Roddenberry himself and at least two of the three initial producers (and I think 3/3 - I just can't find info on the third) were all combat vets and there wasn't a shortage of WW2 era combat experience on the set or among the writers, either. I emphasize this because Star Trek was very much in the same conceptual vein as things like the UN and other post-war or very late-war organizations and innovations that responded to the destruction of the war by emphasizing diplomatic channels and a more dove-ish foreign policy footing in general. edit 2x: It should also be noted that militaries are loving FAMOUS - especially in the modern era - for adopting official uniform standards that are utterly loving insane for the sort of work that people are supposed to be accomplishing in them. Just look at the current round of appropriations for new US military uniforms (including some naval uniforms with gloriously needless blue/black cammo patterns) to see this in full flower. Assuming that "military" is in any way, shape, or form synonymous with "practical" or "well designed" is a dangerous road to start down. If you really want to explain some of the Star Trek universe's more insane and impractical uniform stylings writing some fan fic about how Rear Admiral So-and-So was the 23rd century version of a career Pentagon officer and a real loving fashionista and how he pushed through some insane pet project might make more sense than doing a one man retcon of how they actually appeared on screen. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 14:20
|
|