|
Dublin inner city equestrian culture
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I have spent just enough time around racehorses to realise that they are assholes who enjoy starting fights, but they spook easy. Also due to a quirk of Irish culture I was on the receiving end of a cavalry charge when I was 10 or so. Fuckkan' skangers, I tell ya... i was also in a parade once where my pike was shouldered, putting it at roughly the eye-level of the horse behind me, and she would not stop flipping the hell out. i felt so guilty by the end of it Rockopolis posted:Two weeks till Europe or till sleep? sleep till dresden Coffee is a thing, but it's extremely trendy and drunk in these bleeding-edge new places called "coffee houses" in big cities like Paris. My guys wouldn't know "class" if it shot them in the face, so I'm guessing they don't drink coffee. Other stimulants include tea, tobacco, and chocolate, but except for tobacco and alcohol I haven't seen a lot of mentions of drugs. There's a guy out there who argues that the 17th century sucked so bad that people started doing a whole lot more drugs to deal with it; the ones that became global drugs were coffee, alcohol, tobacco, chocolate, tea, and opium. The "psychoactive revolution" was, I don't know, the military revolution's shadow. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 08:22 on May 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Bwuh? Do tell. Does it have something to do with the Marching Days?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Nope. Certain elements of the working class like to keep horses in housing estates. Those elements tend to be in their teens and have the kind of prospects in life that make it seem like getting the lads together and riding flat out at kids playing football will be fun for all involved. Fun fact: it really is not. What a world we live in, in which it is the equestrian classes who are the poor and dispossessed. Seriously, though, horses? Aren't those really expensive to maintain? What do they keep them for, anyways? I'm having trouble seeing how much use or value a horse is in a modern city, aside from specialist uses like the police or tourist carriages.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Tomn posted:What a world we live in, in which it is the equestrian classes who are the poor and dispossessed.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
They're ponies though, not big horses
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
I'm sure everyone charged by Hobilars found that very comforting.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
Its the old English vs Irish joke. In England if you have a horse it shows your posh in Ireland it shows your poor.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
So apparently new research has come out that suggests that the Western Allies engaged in more rapes of women in the destruction and then occupation of Germany than previously estimated. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/germany-shines-light-rape-allied-troops-who-defeated-nazis-n363136 While it is undoubtedly true that more rapes were committed then are usually acknowledged, a sad fact from coverups and the perceived shame of reporting them in the first place, could the number have been nearly as high as she is now proposing? Now the article is a bit unclear on the exact numbers, but it first says that she believed that 900,000 women were raped in all, but less half those rapes, 430,000 were committed by the Soviets. So is she seriously estimating that the Western Allies committed as many rapes as the Soviets? That seems utterly contrary to everything I know about the final months of the war. Especially the somewhat extensive knowledge I have of the Red Armies campaigns in 1945 and what they did to civilians on their march through eastern Germany. So who is this historian? Is she credible? Is this new research credible? From the way the article words it it seems she is using some inexact science in her methods to achieve an estimate. I'm not trying to white wash the West's role in the mass rape of Germany women during the close of World War 2 but this estimation seems to be on the unreasonably high side of the spectrum. At the end of the article a different historian suggests a far lower estimate of 14,000 women being raped by the Western Allies. A terrible number but much more in line with current scholarship than 900,000. I can easily see the number being far greater than 14,000 due to the sheer amount of soldiers but 30 times as many? I'd be happy to see more evidence supporting her claim but I am taking a very skeptical eye toward it until I do. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 15:29 on May 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i've been charged twice so far, but we choreographed the hell out of it first because horses are expensive and valuable (reenactors, on the other hand?) There's an apocryphal quote that has been attributed to nearly every Russian military commander of note over the years: "drat the men, we can always birth more, but the horses were paid for with gold!"
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
I feel really bad for the Russian soldier through the ages.
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So apparently new research has come out that suggests that the Western Allies engaged in more rapes of women in the destruction and then occupation of Germany than previously estimated. Sounds like nonsense. quote:Her estimates are partially based on the assumption that one child originated from every 100 cases of rape. In other words, she did some estimate of the number of children born that she thought was the result of rape, and then multiplied it by 100 because... well, that's the sort of number we'd call 'plucked out of one's butt'.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So apparently new research has come out that suggests that the Western Allies engaged in more rapes of women in the destruction and then occupation of Germany than previously estimated. My countrys (Sweden) largest daily newspaper reported on this too, so i'm curious about this as well. The NBC article mentions that some experts dispute her numbers, while our newspaper reported it as fact.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Falukorv posted:My countrys (Sweden) largest daily newspaper reported on this too, so i'm curious about this as well. The NBC article mentions that some experts dispute her numbers, while our newspaper reported it as fact. I mean it's fact in the sense that it is the thesis of her book. On the other hand, these sorts of extrapolations are inherently problematic since they are wholly dependent on subjective assumptions. Essentially what she did was take the number of "war children", i.e. children born to unmarried women in American-occupied West Germany in the 10 years following the occupation of Germany (38,000), and then assumed that five percent of those children were the product of rape (1,900), and then assumed that it takes 100 rapes to produce one child (190,000)*. She then applied the same formula to the British, French and Soviet occupied regions of Germany, coming up with the figures 45,000, 50,000, and 430,000 respectively. In comparison, the historical consensus based on the research of many historians, and in particular Robert Lilly's examination of military records and court transcripts indicates about 11,000 rapes occurred between 1942 and 1945 involved American troops, and another 3,000 involving the British and the French. The Soviet figures are estimated at 1-2 million rapes, and have been particularly well-researched. Any one of these elements is highly debatable, and taken together they produce the academic equivalent of clickbait: A huge assertion backed up with nothing more than anecdotes. It reminds me of Mark Twain's popular phrase "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." If nothing else, her figures for the Soviet occupation are clearly incorrect, since hospital and morgue records indicate far more than that occurred. Beyond that her decision to base her statistics off an entire decade of births is extremely suspect, for all historians agree that the rapes predominantly occurred in the months immediately succeeding the initial occupation of each area, peaking in 1945. Given that the situation had so clearly changed in the intervening decade, there is no reason to believe that applying the same formula to 1945 and 1955 would yield useful results. Here is Der Spiegel's take on the matter: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/book-claims-us-soldiers-raped-190-000-german-women-post-wwii-a-1021298.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany *As an example of how easy it is to manipulate statistics, one could argue that either of these results would be equally viable: quote:"Looking at 3 years following the occupation in the American zone, we went through the birth records of so-called "war children" (12,000), of which we assume (based on Parish statistics) two percent were the product of rape (240) and then assumed (based on abortion and victim statistics) that it takes 45 rapes to produce one child (10,800 total rapes by Americans)." This is not to say that the truth is in the middle, but rather to point out that this it's clear that this sort of analysis doesn't produce usable results unless each assumption is laboriously explained and supported. Perhaps her book does this, but if so then that support has not been talked about in the press. The long and short of it is that her numbers are wildly different from the many other historians who have done far more exhaustive examinations of this topic over the last few decades. Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:51 on May 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:First off, most cavalry combat wasn't done on horseback by the time you get to the American Civil War. Horses are really big targets and react poorly to bullets. It was far, far more common for cavalry to be employed similar to how we use helicopter-lifted light infantry today: you ride the horse around when you're not in combat, giving you amazing mobility and speed compared to foot infantry, then dismount when you get to the fight. Like most highly mobile light infantry the general idea is that they can go places that are inaccessible to the main army, and having a few lightly armed men in an area is far better than no men. Same deal once you get to the various conflicts with the Plains Indians - a horse can cover a poo poo load more territory in a much shorter time than a man on foot and you really don't need a full field army to subdue a bunch of nomads. The Spencer Rifle is reloaded through a tube in the stock, sometimes with a speed loader, which is.. more practical than a lot of other weapons. The Spencer was the typical Union cavalry weapon during the ACW.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Yeah, from the criticism I've read from far more accomplished historians I gotta say her numbers are definitely wildly incorrect. It seems like she was trying to make some false equivalency between how the Soviets and the West treated German civilians. Why else would she make ridiculously flawed assumptions to come up with so high a number for the West while at the same time throwing out decades of solid research about the Soviet rapes so that she could cut that estimation in half?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Sifting through Soviet documents, I've seen some broken typewriters before (poor typist had to go back and manually fill in every instance of a broken letter), but I just came across a creatively repaired one. They must have cannibalized a German typewriter for parts, since the letter 'к' was replaced with 'k' and the letter 'У' with the letter 'Y'. It really threw me off before I figured out why the words looked weird.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:. The Spencer was the typical Union cavalry weapon during the ACW. No it wasn't. The cav used them but they were still mostly armed with muzzle loading arms and, later, breech loaders. edit: to give you an idea of how relatively rare they were compared to breech loaders and muzzle loaders, it was considered a really big loving deal when Wilder's "Lightning Brigade" was equipped entirely with Spencers in 1863. It should be noted that he initially purchased the guns for his men with his own funds, but was later reimbursed by the government. That was really common in the ACW for men who were armed with repeaters - a good chunk of them were personal weapons that were bought by soldiers to replace their issued weapons. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 00:53 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
So to the guy who asked about familial ties in the profession of being a mercenary, I'm reading a thing on how they were very important, but although fathers and sons often both go into the profession, usually you see uncles directly advancing the careers of their nephews or brothers helping their brothers out. This is probably because these peoples' lifespans are comparatively short, so by the time you get shot in the head or whatever your son will still be too young for you to directly help him with your own efforts. This could lead to awkward incidents: quote:In 1626, during Wallenstein's campaign in Hungary against Mansfeld, Franz Albrecht of Sachsen-Lauenburg was a military commander under Wallenstein, while his brother Franz Karl fought under Mansfeld. An attempt to use this odd situation for starting negotiations failed. A few years later, in 1627 during the Danish War, Franz Karl's regiment, fleeing with the rest of the Danish army in which he served, had to surrender to Franz Albrecht, still a Wallenstein colonel. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 03:29 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
"Oh, what cruel fate that puts brother against brother! What horror to be forced to choose between blood and duty!" "Yes, yes, yes, God, get a hold of yourself man. You sign here, here and here, protestant service is at 9, mass is at 10, you're not allowed to gently caress with each other's sacraments and there will be a guy around tomorrow with a muster list so you can sign up with us."
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
What's the deal with the not uncommon Neo-Nazi/right wing extremist argument that the Western Allies, specifically Ike, brought about the deaths of a million German POWs in the aftermath of the war through deliberate starvation and abuse? Obviously it's revisionist propaganda used in an effort to draw a false equivalence between the Nazis and the Allies, and is always hand in hand with some degree of Holocaust denial to support that effort, but I'm curious about where it originated from. I understand the controversy about the re-designation of POWs to DEFs so that they could still be used as a labor force once hostilities ceased. I'm sure that many Allied officers weren't too sympathetic toward the plight of these German laborers when they were being forced to repair the massive damage to Europe that they had inflicted. Combining that indifference with the oftentimes very dangerous work I'm sure many Germans lost their lives, especially when they were near last on the triage list for the limited resources in war torn Europe. But the extraordinary numbers thrown around are eye-rolling bullshit, kind of similar to how hacks like David Irving say that half a million people died in the Dresden bombing. And where does the idea that it happened due to a systematically planned order come from? Does it originate from the early ideas for the Morgenthau Plan and the calculations that millions of Germans would starve to death if the goal of forcing Germany back into a pre-industrial state was realized? Is it residue from the Goebbels propaganda near the end of the war about the information that was leaked out about the post-war plans for German partitioning? From what I can tell it sprung up in the 80s right with the mini-explosion of Holocaust Denial 'research' and 'literature' which I am sure is not a coincidence. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 07:26 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
I think the argument is mostly about the so-called Rheinwiesenlager. Basically, the mass surrender of the Wehrmacht in May 1945 overstretched allied supply capabilities. So you had hundreds of thousands of soldiers put into incredibly rudimentary camps, sleeping in holes in the ground, with far too few guards and not enough food. Disease was rampant, especially since these soldiers hadn't exactly been well-supplied before. Now, the decision to hold German soldiers in these camps was made in 1943, and yes, came from Ike. The accepted number of dead is closer to 10k, though. Not exactly a sterling performance, to be sure, but the idea that it was planned from the beginning to kill millions of Germans is a little absurd given that many prisoners were simply released in the late summer.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
This is just a reminder that the latest round of Grey Hunter's latest ridiculously ambitious Let's Play, in which two teams of goons re-fight the First World War, is about to begin. It's 1915, trench warfare has set in, and there's a strange smell hanging around the lines that isn't bratwurst or escargots. I can't speak for Zee Germans (nor would I want to  ) , but the Entente side is always looking for potential new players to hang out in our thread only and act as consultant staff officers. You can absolutely be helpful to the cause without needing to jump right into a field command!Observer/main thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3705107 Zee Germans: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3705107 The Entente: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3705109&pagenumber=54 100 Years Ago Yesterday: A day of rumblings. General Nixon finally gets someone to approve his advance up the Tigris, rioting in Sri Lanka between Muslims and Buddhists starts spreading outside Kandy, General Joffre rethinks his strategic approach, the French Empire troops on Gallipoli plan an assault, and Louis Barthas has just enough time to form a touching relationship with some young refugees before he's given orders to the trenches to join Second Artois when it resumes... Today: A nondescript German cavalryman begins his journey towards fame and fortune in the air, the French assault the Haricot, the situation in Sri Lanka is spiralling out of control fast, and in Italy Gabriele D'Annunzio is being weaponised. Armenian Genocide latest sees that deportation orders are beginning to percolate through the Ottoman Empire, and Louis Barthas describes his new quarters thusly: quote:Our section was led to a sheepfold, abandoned because it was no longer inhabitable by sheep. He also has some choice sarcasm for a relic of John the Baptist.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Yeah, from the criticism I've read from far more accomplished historians I gotta say her numbers are definitely wildly incorrect. It seems like she was trying to make some false equivalency between how the Soviets and the West treated German civilians. Why else would she make ridiculously flawed assumptions to come up with so high a number for the West while at the same time throwing out decades of solid research about the Soviet rapes so that she could cut that estimation in half? Maybe she thinks she's right and her assumptions aren't ridiculously flawed? If her paper ends up somewhere were I can read it, I'll try to get a look at her numbers to see how she came up with them in detail.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:This is just a reminder that the latest round of Grey Hunter's latest ridiculously ambitious Let's Play, in which two teams of goons re-fight the First World War, is about to begin. Speaking of which, is that write-up about how your experiences shaped your research and vice versa going to need to wait until 1916 now?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:This is just a reminder that the latest round of Grey Hunter's latest ridiculously ambitious Let's Play, in which two teams of goons re-fight the First World War, is about to begin. It's 1915, trench warfare has set in, and there's a strange smell hanging around the lines that isn't bratwurst or escargots. I can't speak for Zee Germans (nor would I want to Is the observer thread suppose to be the german thread? you have the same link posted for both
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
how does Robert Lilly arrive at his numbers? It can't solely be from court cases, right, there's some extrapolation from that? Obviously not all sexual assaults would have been reported or prosecuted. 130,000 seems like a very high number, but 14,000 also seems very low. There was what, almost 2 million GIs in Europe at the end of the war? That's one sexual assault per 135 men, which seems impossible. I find it hard to believe soldiers commit less sexual assaults than civilians. Studies of college-aged men show about 6% reported committing rapes; and most of those more than one.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Is the observer thread suppose to be the german thread? you have the same link posted for both This is the observer thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3704884
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
shallowj posted:Studies of college-aged men show about 6% reported committing rapes; and most of those more than one. Those are also mostly date rapes or party rapes that are based around alcohol use. A rape by a soldier is almost certainly going to be the violent, forced kind, rather than a "she didn't say no!" kind. It's harder for a human to rationalize that, so I could see it being a lower level than frat bros.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
that's a good point. i've also seen seen it noted in places many of these rapes were group assaults, so the number of assaults isn't a 1:1 to number of rapists.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Frat boys don't also have the potential for a military court martial hanging oover their head. Plus there is a lot more structure authority and observation. It wouldn't surprise me if western militaries in combat zones have lower rates of most non killing offenses.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Frat boys don't also have the potential for a military court martial hanging oover their head. Plus there is a lot more structure authority and observation. It wouldn't surprise me if western militaries in combat zones have lower rates of most non killing offenses. Don't US soldiers have more stringent rules of engagement about when they can fire than US cops at the moment?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Don't US soldiers have more stringent rules of engagement about when they can fire than US cops at the moment? When I was in Fallujah, I certainly got that impression.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Don't US soldiers have more stringent rules of engagement about when they can fire than US cops at the moment? I don't think there's any doubt about it. Just last week a cop got acquitted for firing over 30 rounds at a car in like something under a minute. That's probably more than most soldiers fire in anger during an entire tour. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 19:46 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:That's probably more than most soldiers fire in anger during an entire tour. Somehow I doubt this is true...
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Somehow I doubt this is true... I didn't shoot once during my tour. Like I said, our Rules of Engagement are strict and obvious. (Shout shove show shoot). When we are literally waving flags, people know we're escalating. Cops skip all that. (Keep in mind we were doing literal police work in 2006, including having a fingerprint team and database, and the insurgents were using artillery shell IEDs. The protesters in Baltimore are nothing close). Hell, I remember one sniper that killed two of our guys. We tore apart the city and still captured him alive and unharmed.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:I didn't shoot once during my tour. Like I said, our Rules of Engagement are strict and obvious. (Shout shove show shoot). When we are literally waving flags, people know we're escalating. I won't argue that the police don't have a major problem with over-use of force right now, but they sure as hell do have rules about escalation of force. They don't just reach for their pistol the second something isn't going exactly to plan.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
My understanding is that a subsidiary problem is that marksmanship requirements for the police force tend to be awful to non-existent.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I won't argue that the police don't have a major problem with over-use of force right now, but they sure as hell do have rules about escalation of force. They don't just reach for their pistol the second something isn't going exactly to plan. They might have rules about it, but it seems like in practice almost anything justifies escalating to lethal force immediately. Furtive movements, holding an object that could look like a gun if you squint, hands near their waist band...
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:07
|
|
