|
Hazzard posted:It's not a perfect comparison, but one supreme leader ruling over most of the population is something they have in common. A deified man who only wants what's best for you is quite appealing if you believe it. I meant more absolute dictatorships than specifically fascism. Look at Soviet and Chinese propaganda for Stalin and Mao. They aren't men, they're near superhuman. I can't say about Mao, but Stalin was always, without exception, comrade Stalin, and Lenin was often referred to by the exceptionally informal "Ilyich".
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
I think Mao's colleagues tended to refer to him by "Zedong", the people IIRC referred to him as 'the Chairman'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Is this thread the totally wrong place to ask how a clan system like that worked? When I was a wee barin undergrad, I may have asked a professor this and he was all "THE CLAN SYSTEM WAS BULLSHIT, it was all a scheme by those imperialist English to make Scotland twee and nonthreatening" and the sheer vehemence of his response kept me from asking any more questions along these lines I don't know about the clan system specifically, but a I've heard lot of the traditions like the "highland games" and kilts and tartans and stuff were made up wholecloth once Balmoral became an amusement park for the royals. My impression was it was somewhat analogous to the administrator class going full samurai in Japan where a bunch of rich industrialists/minor aristocrats from the rich areas of Scotland suddenly got super into traditions that barely existed a generation before and claimed they were ancient. I don't claim any expertise on the subject however (and would love to be corrected if I was wrong).
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:IIRC Russia during WW2 and Prussia in the Napoleonic Wars had around 2.7% of the total population in the armed forces in some way. Wherever I read this said this was the highest of any state in history. I'm guessing this refers specifically to nation states and in times where we can accurately account for it, since otherwise you'd probably get a steppe tribe like the Mongols counting. That part about 2.7% being the highest of any state in history can't be right. In Sweden during the cold war, in case of a full mobilization (which never happened, mind) the armed forces would number about 850,000 men, and this was in a country with a population of just over 8 million at the time. A lot of these would be assigned to more or less static defensive formations that would not have much in the way of heavy weapons or motorization (there were many "bicycle infantry" units well into the 80's), but there were uniforms, boots, rifles and mines for everyone. I'm not joking about the mines by the way, already in the early 50's there were several million AT mines in storage and that number grew during the cold war. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:I'm not joking about the mines by the way, already in the early 50's there were several million AT mines in storage and that number grew during the cold war. I choose to read this not as 'more were manufactured and added to the stockpile' but 'hey, you leave a bunch of mines in storage and one thing leads to another...'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:I don't know about the clan system specifically, but a I've heard lot of the traditions like the "highland games" and kilts and tartans and stuff were made up wholecloth once Balmoral became an amusement park for the royals. My impression was it was somewhat analogous to the administrator class going full samurai in Japan where a bunch of rich industrialists/minor aristocrats from the rich areas of Scotland suddenly got super into traditions that barely existed a generation before and claimed they were ancient. I don't claim any expertise on the subject however (and would love to be corrected if I was wrong). Hobsbawm wrote about that and argued it was mostly a result of rising nationalism and to separate themselves from the dirty Irish. In addition to the tartans and kilts, there was also the questionable authenticity of Ossian. Been a while since I've read this though: http://www.amazon.com/The-Invention-Tradition-Canto-Classics/dp/1107604672 Pontius Pilate fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
The vast majority of traditions, clothing, foodstuffs etc that we today see as characteristic for a country (such as kilts and bagpipes in Scotland) were more or less fabricated in the later half of the 19th century as a part of the growing nationalist movement. They're usually based on things that actually did exist in some small part of the country, but they were neither widespread, nor seen as important or characteristic, nor all that ancient. Nationalism as a whole is mostly made out of smoke and mirrors. And yeah read Hobsbawm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
this is from 1631 though. i mean it's not the whole high victorian folderol, but these are dudes in kilts
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:this is from 1631 though. i mean it's not the whole high victorian folderol, but these are dudes in kilts I'm the musketeer who tucked their kilt into their boots to create pants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:this is from 1631 though. i mean it's not the whole high victorian folderol, but these are dudes in kilts Those are Irish, or madmen (actual translation)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Those are Irish, or madmen (actual translation) Empress Theonora posted:I'm the musketeer who tucked their kilt into their boots to create pants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:they are scottish, those are some of the scots who work for gustavus adolphus, the artist didn't really know the difference, only that they were from "over there, or whatever" oh my loving god
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Kilts did exist in that time too, the modern Kilt which is mostly associated is the Victorian one everyone assumes is THE Kilt. Real Highland era Kilts were longer, rougher and covered a lot more. And lets be honest, they look a lot more bad rear end.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:they are scottish, those are some of the scots who work for gustavus adolphus, the artist didn't really know the difference, only that they were from "over there, or whatever" Still madmen 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:they are scottish, those are some of the scots who work for gustavus adolphus, the artist didn't really know the difference, only that they were from "over there, or whatever"
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:They could actually be both. 1631 is plenty of time for the Scottish settlers of the Ulster Plantation to have kids that are culturally still closer to their parent's homeland than their own and for those kids to head off looking for a fight. edit: on a more humble level, every now and then i find a scot or two in a muster roll, or some english, but no irish. no idea why, it may just be random chance, or maybe they didn't want to be employed by Lutherans and i'd find a lot more in the imperial army Empress Theonora posted:oh my loving god HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:IIRC Russia during WW2 and Prussia in the Napoleonic Wars had around 2.7% of the total population in the armed forces in some way. Wherever I read this said this was the highest of any state in history. I'm guessing this refers specifically to nation states and in times where we can accurately account for it, since otherwise you'd probably get a steppe tribe like the Mongols counting. That's way, way too low. Just for the Soviet Union in World War 2, their military topped out at around 12 or 13 million in service at the same time. Total who served during the war was close to 30 million. That's out of a population of 200 million, around 40% of whom were under German occupation. The USA hit 12% (also during WW2).
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:they know that pants are a thing, but they're not quite sure how to get there from where they are I feel that this Important Scottish Cultural Contribution is relevant here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yw0bLHTOb0
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:there are a shitton of scottish and irish on both sides of that war, and i think that's where all those german/austrian/bohemian/french nobles with Anglo names came from
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
anxiously neutral but anti spain
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Real Highland era Kilts were longer, rougher and covered a lot more. I've seen these referred to as 'greatkilts' to distinguish them from the small variety. Several meters of heavy woollen fabric wrapped repeatedly around your whole body.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Sorry, his father had multiple children with this women, but because black people won't be accepted in the French Aristocracy when Dad wants to return to France he sells Mom and Thomas-Alexandre's siblings? His father just had Thomas-Alexandre with her if I remember correctly. The others were Thomas-Alexandre's half siblings. But yes, he sells them into slavery. Thomas-Alexandre's uncle had owned his mother and when his father had a falling out with his brother, he ran off with her and her kids. But yes. He was a dick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:I'm the musketeer who tucked their kilt into their boots to create pants. i wonder if that's their era's "socks in sandals"
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
OK, so Brigadoon - not actually representative of historical Scotland But the clans. These were real and important social structures?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:IIRC Russia during WW2 and Prussia in the Napoleonic Wars had around 2.7% of the total population in the armed forces in some way. Wherever I read this said this was the highest of any state in history. I'm guessing this refers specifically to nation states and in times where we can accurately account for it, since otherwise you'd probably get a steppe tribe like the Mongols counting. Finland in WWII had 13.25 % of population in military and 1% in active duty Lotta Svärd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:i wonder if that's their era's "socks in sandals" I think you'll find that socks in sandals is every era's "socks in sandals" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I think you'll find that socks in sandals is every era's "socks in sandals" Tu quoque, Romani: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/may/20/highereducation.artsandhumanities
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Trews were a thing too.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
hey mil hist people i need you all to find and trnaslate this book for me. tia. happy thanksgiving btw
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:I don't know about the clan system specifically, but a I've heard lot of the traditions like the "highland games" and kilts and tartans and stuff were made up wholecloth once Balmoral became an amusement park for the royals. My impression was it was somewhat analogous to the administrator class going full samurai in Japan where a bunch of rich industrialists/minor aristocrats from the rich areas of Scotland suddenly got super into traditions that barely existed a generation before and claimed they were ancient. I don't claim any expertise on the subject however (and would love to be corrected if I was wrong). This is true but the same can be said for all traditions if one goes back far enough, all are invented. The clans were very much real however. By the Victorian era the Scottish kinship system had collapsed completely, the version revived by this lot had lost all its historical functions and meaning. Arquinsiel posted:They could actually be both. 1631 is plenty of time for the Scottish settlers of the Ulster Plantation to have kids that are culturally still closer to their parent's homeland than their own and for those kids to head off looking for a fight. In addition the difference between the Irish and Scotch Highlanders was quite blurry prior to this period. Both were Catholic, both spoke Gaelic. Powerful Clans could control territory on either side of the Irish Sea. In fact the Scots originally migrated into Scotland from Ireland, you could forgive a German for not drawing fine distinctions. Nebakenezzer posted:Is this thread the totally wrong place to ask how a clan system like that worked? When I was a wee barin undergrad, I may have asked a professor this and he was all "THE CLAN SYSTEM WAS BULLSHIT, it was all a scheme by those imperialist English to make Scotland twee and nonthreatening" and the sheer vehemence of his response kept me from asking any more questions along these lines The Scottish Clans were a straight up tribal affinal system much like those that exist today in Yemen and Somalia. Everyone in a clan is in the same extended family. The clan is divided into small cadet clans corresponding to more recent ancestors. Here's a diagram:  Everyone has a duty to serve their clan on the basis of their relation. Authority within the clan follows Agnatic Seniority. The oldest son in a family is in charge and the cadet-clan of the ancestors oldest son has authority over the other branches. Where it gets complicated is how clans interacted with the feudal system. Clans operated along a parallel tradition of property and landownership separate but related to feudal title. For clans land was owned communally, and Chiefs held it in trust for the whole and had no right to sell or trade it away. Chiefs were usually but not always the feudal lord, and clan lands did not necessarily line up with feudal titles. Doesn't someone post here who studies Ireland in the 17th century? He might understand the system better than I, Ireland and Scotland shared a lot in common in the Medieval and Renaissance period. Squalid fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Johnston got sacked because McClellan got to like 5 miles outside Richmond and Johnston ate over 6,000 casualties only to stall him. McClellan had 45k more men at hand than Johnston did and probably could have broken the AoNV if he'd just stopped imagining Johnston had 200k instead of 65k. Had McClellan taken Richmond at that point I'm not sure if the war would have even continued. I've always found the argument that "all McClellan had to do was attack" to be a little difficult. A well executed attack probably would have been successful in the field, yes, but I don't think it is very likely that the ANV would have "broken" or otherwise been rendered totally ineffective: that sort of thing just didn't happen much during the ACW, despite the generals' best efforts (on both sides) to fight that one decisive battle. They likely would have retreated to Richmond and taken under siege just as they did versus Grant, and I think the North would have had an extremely difficult time sustaining such an army for a protracted siege action at that point during the war. In other words, the outcome would have been pretty similar to what actually happened (retreat down the peninsula, heavy casualties for the ANV).
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Vulture posted:hey mil hist people i need you all to find and trnaslate this book for me. tia. happy thanksgiving btw Has there ever been any consensus reached about this guy's claims? I remember back when it was making headlines there was a lot of skepticism about whether his account was viable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Vulture posted:hey mil hist people i need you all to find and trnaslate this book for me. tia. happy thanksgiving btw It's available in English.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I've always found the argument that "all McClellan had to do was attack" to be a little difficult. A well executed attack probably would have been successful in the field, yes, but I don't think it is very likely that the ANV would have "broken" or otherwise been rendered totally ineffective: that sort of thing just didn't happen much during the ACW, despite the generals' best efforts (on both sides) to fight that one decisive battle. They likely would have retreated to Richmond and taken under siege just as they did versus Grant, and I think the North would have had an extremely difficult time sustaining such an army for a protracted siege action at that point during the war. In other words, the outcome would have been pretty similar to what actually happened (retreat down the peninsula, heavy casualties for the ANV). It's less "he just needed to attack" and more "He needed to stop imagining the loving rebels were traipsing around with 200k men."
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Has there ever been any consensus reached about this guy's claims? I remember back when it was making headlines there was a lot of skepticism about whether his account was viable. Like almost all self-made claims in WWII, his too are wildly inflated. There were 7800 troops on the German side on Omaha Beach and the American casualtied were 3000. He definitely didn't cause 2000 of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Like almost all self-made claims in WWII, his too are wildly inflated. There were 7800 troops on the German side on Omaha Beach and the American casualtied were 3000. He definitely didn't cause 2000 of them. I kind of want to see someone bring it up in an argument so I can watch them try to explain why the German army was so incompetent that the entire force in Normandy only did half of what one man could. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I kind of want to see someone bring it up in an argument so I can watch them try to explain why the German army was so incompetent that the entire force in Normandy only did half of what one man could. They were told to execute their plans, so most of them only received blanks 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Koramei posted:It's definitely not 100% though, there are loads of accounts of defectors that were never in the military. They might have been in some other type of service instead though, I forget. Even the concept of >10% mobilization( and even that's some crazy-high Sparta numbers) for a group of people not currently engaged in war is farcial. I guarantee you this is an accurate depiction of the activities and training of DPRK forces:  e: I'm not saying that sparta held that sort of mobilization all the time, just that at the height of their power (like, 400 BC/9600HE) they were basically at a permanant state of low or high intensity warfare. Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
In some countries the army runs many businesses. So you work a normal job, only not doing it is treason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
Wallenstein's tomb is here. The current plaque thing was put on in 1934 and it is super tacky. http://www.oberlausitz.com/ferien/kulturell/via-sacra/de/kapelle-hl._anna_mnichovo-muenchengraetz.aspx
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 14:29
|
|