|
Empress Theonora posted:I'm so confused by this article since it seems like it's written in the Cracked house style but it's also written in the first person? I mean I guess it's like not literally impossible that a dude who must be in like his 70s is writing things like, "In hip U.S. neighborhoods, they'd call that something like 'paleo bathing' and charge you a fortune for it" in reference to his Vietnam War experiences, but it seems very odd. Is this being embellished by the interviewer? Did the VC veteran they interviewed just happen to have a day job as a Cracked staff writer so he writes like one? Cracked writes articles like this one collaboratively. Which is to say, the person interviewed says interesting stuff, and then a Cracked writer edits in pop-culture references and dick jokes.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
That could have been a good article but
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
my dad posted:Cracked writes articles like this one collaboratively. Which is to say, the person interviewed says interesting stuff, and then a Cracked writer edits in pop-culture references and dick jokes. That seems like a pretty dumb way to write an interview. edit: thanks for telling us this heartbreaking story about being traumatized by war and coming back to your home and finding your entire village wiped out! and now, The Jokes
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
FishFood posted:What's the other one? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:That seems like a pretty dumb way to write an interview. Well, yes, Cracked. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It seems like this would be necessary for any jet aircraft, even if just from a bird strike perspective. Well, bulletproof glass was most definitely used in WW2 aircraft, so I'd be surprised if jets of that era didn't if other aircraft still carried MGs/Cannons. Not to mention general flak and, like you said, bird strikes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Well, bulletproof glass was most definitely used in WW2 aircraft, so I'd be surprised if jets of that era didn't if other aircraft still carried MGs/Cannons. Not to mention general flak and, like you said, bird strikes. Wasn't BP glass more restricted in WW2 use, though? I remember reading specifically about how the P47 had a plate of it directly in front of the pilot, while the rest of the canopy wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:That seems like a pretty dumb way to write an interview. The sad part is that you tend not to find this sort of thing anywhere else, or at least it's not publicized as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:35
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2HL1TW7OwM 100 Years Ago Three days until the start of the Battle of Verdun. The Germans now begin their main programme of deception attacks and demonstrations, carefully designed to simulate as far as possible the conditions on the first day of Verdun. Though they don't know it, they could not be attacking General Joffre and the French general staff more effectively. Meanwhile: more recon by fire at Salaita Hill, and this time E.S. Thompson gets to play; Colonel Hankey tries to do something to improve the lot of British military aviation; General Haig either displays his far-sighted approval of the tank project or shows us all what a near-sighted cavalry-obsessed goon he is, depending on how you want to read his actions today; the last Serbian Army units leave Albania; Bernard Adams describes further the Bois Francais position; and Malcolm White is at Le Havre, waiting for orders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Wasn't BP glass more restricted in WW2 use, though? I remember reading specifically about how the P47 had a plate of it directly in front of the pilot, while the rest of the canopy wasn't. Yeah, if the plane had bulletproof glass it was usually a    Not-related edit:  
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
can anyone speak more or recommend books on the Papal States, especially the early period? I'm really curious how they became a separate polity. I assume this would have been a gradual process as the Byzantine influence in Italy waned. When did the States become considered sovereign? also, speaking of sovereignty, is there a clear end to when feudal allegiances no longer crossed "international" boundaries? The most obvious example I can think of is William ruling in England but still owing fealty to the King of France. I know this happened on much smaller scales too. Are there any interesting examples of the impact of these sorts of things? Were there attempts to lessen the occurrence of this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
the kings of England were also the electors of Hanover for a while there
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Wasn't it more so that the Dukes of Normandy were also the Kings of England.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Most Holy Roman Emperors belonged to a family that owned hereditary lands that extended way outside the Empire. Likewise the Prussia part of Brandenburg-Prussia
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
shallowj posted:Are there any interesting examples of the impact of these sorts of things? Were there attempts to lessen the occurrence of this? The one that immediately leaps to mind was the way that Brandenburg expanded to become Brandenburg-Prussia, eventually the Kingdom of Prussia. It was one of the things that started to pull power in central Europe into the periphery and out of the core of the HRE (the other, of course, being the growing importance of Austria and its entanglements in non-HRE territories like Hungary). Brandenburg was one of the constituent states of the HRE and contributed one of the electors. By the 15th Century the Hohenzollerns had solidified their grip over both the Margrave and the Electorship. In the early 17th Century the Hohenzollerns managed to grab the Duchy of Prussia under a personal union. A personal union is an arrangement where one person rules two areas that, despite having the same monarch, are still considered distinct political entities. As the Dukes of Prussia the Hohenzollern leaders were technically vassals of the Polish King. This didn't result in the will of the Polish monarch subsuming that of a German leader who was a vassal, or leading to Polish meddling in affairs in Brandenburg. What happened instead is that the Hohenzollerns became more and more concerned with affairs in Prussia where they didn't have the structure of the HRE restricting their ambitions. In less than 50 years they had managed to get rid of even nominal Polish sovereignty and quickly began calling themselves Kings. Over the coming centuries this lead to the Prussian part of "Brandenburg-Prussia" becoming ever more important, since it could act autonomously. At the same time it (or at least the governing elite) still retained the Germanic central-European character that let it identify more with, say, Bohemia or Hesse than with points further east. The expansion of dynastic concerns to encompass lands that lay outside of the HRE is a big part of what caused the HRE to start its decline into irrelevance. edit: not just Hohenzollern dynastic concerns. The Habsburgs are also pretty major parts of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Wasn't it more so that the Dukes of Normandy were also the Kings of England. Yep. For the first 150 years or so after the conquest, the English monarchy tended to view Normandy as their primary holding. Then sometime around 1200 King John (the Robin Hood one) lost it to the French, and his son eventually formally relinquished their claim to the king of France a few decades later. shallowj posted:also, speaking of sovereignty, is there a clear end to when feudal allegiances no longer crossed "international" boundaries? The most obvious example I can think of is William ruling in England but still owing fealty to the King of France. I know this happened on much smaller scales too. Are there any interesting examples of the impact of these sorts of things? Were there attempts to lessen the occurrence of this? There was no such thing as France at the time of the Norman conquest. Normandy was independent and "duke" was basically the title they gave to their leader themselves. I suppose they owed some nominal fealty to whoever was King of the Franks, but in reality the relationship between Normans and the House of Capet was on much more equal footing than their titles suggest. Being just a few generations removed from being Norse invaders, the Normans would look to the House of Capet to legitimize their activities, and in return the King of the Franks could (usually) count on the Normans to assist him in military affairs. William the Conqueror also had "French" (again, they didn't call themselves that until the 1100s) assistance prior to the invasion when Western Normandy revolted against him. It was a pretty symbiotic relationship. Jamwad Hilder fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Two or three Electors of Saxony were also Kings of Poland, which is why this gold statue of Augustus the Strong on a fat horse faces northeast:
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
goddamn, take away the feed bag 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
i love the fat horse statue, it was made in 17-somethingorother and restored in the 50s, which means a roomful of earnest Communist bureaucrats signed off on that thing. that really is gold, the entire thing is gilded
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i love the fat horse statue, it was made in 17-somethingorother and restored in the 50s, which means a roomful of earnest Communist bureaucrats signed off on that thing. that really is gold, the entire thing is gilded It's not bourgeoise excess if the people all get to look at our giant, gilded horse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
augustus the strong was only the most famous one, but all the wettins partied hard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_II_the_Strong as dynasties go, they were pretty ok
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:augustus the strong was only the most famous one, but all the wettins partied hard: quote:Augustes' great physical strength earned him the nicknames "the Strong", "the Saxon Hercules" and "Iron-Hand." He liked to show that he lived up to his name by breaking horseshoes with his bare hands and engaging in fox tossing  Fox tossing is exactly like it sounds
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
augustus died as he had lived: drinking a whole lot the last wettin was so plastered at a review once he fell of his horse. every saxon i've talked to about this is ok with it though, like "yeah other people may have fredrick the great, but we've got these guys, whatcha gonna do"
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Yep. For the first 150 years or so after the conquest, the English monarchy tended to view Normandy as their primary holding. Then sometime around 1200 King John (the Robin Hood one) lost it to the French, and his son eventually formally relinquished their claim to the king of France a few decades later. Ehh, kinda, it got re-claimed whenever it was convenient - notably and famously during the Hundred Years' War. 'King of France' was part of the title of the King of England right up until 1801 when Ireland was brought into the Union. (the fact that France was a republic at the time and Britain was fighting to restore its Bourbon king might have something to do with that I guess)
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:augustus the strong was only the most famous one, but all the wettins partied hard: "Some contemporary sources, including Wilhelmine of Bayreuth, claimed that Augustus had as many as 365 or 382 children. " drat
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The one that immediately leaps to mind was the way that Brandenburg edit: not just Hohenzollern dynastic concerns. The Habsburgs are also pretty major parts of that. I'd argue the Habsburgs were actually the larger factor, given their historical role in the HRE. Go look at a map of the 19th century Austrian then Austro-Hungarian Empire and see which bits of it are in the HRE and which are not... Edit: as for the Papal States there's a period of several centuries between the Byzantines loving off and the bona fide Papal States. For a while there half of Italy, including Rome, is (a rather independent-minded) part of the Holy Roman Empire (yes, it was once actually Roman). The main thing you want to look up there is the Investiture Controversy. The division between pro-Pope Guelphs and pro-Emperor Ghibellines is (probably) the backstory to Romeo and Juliet, incidentally  feedmegin fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Ehh, kinda, it got re-claimed whenever it was convenient - notably and famously during the Hundred Years' War. 'King of France' was part of the title of the King of England right up until 1801 when Ireland was brought into the Union. (the fact that France was a republic at the time and Britain was fighting to restore its Bourbon king might have something to do with that I guess) This is two different things. The Plantagenets went to war over France because they felt they had a legitimate successor to the French throne, even though their candidate wasn't allowed by French law because it was matrilineal. That was the justification they used, Normandy didn't really factor into the equation. I also worded my response kinda poorly. I meant to say that the Normans viewed England as secondary to their continental holdings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:This is two different things. The Plantagenets went to war over France because they felt they had a legitimate successor to the French throne, even though their candidate wasn't allowed by French law because it was matrilineal. That was the justification they used, Normandy didn't really factor into the equation. Hang on though, when did King John or anyone English around that time lay claim to the throne of the King of France/King of the Franks, i.e. the Capetians? Aquitaine and Normandy are not the same thing, for all of how powerless the Capetians were at times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
In mildly interesting future of artillery news I had a tech presentation today about a "next gen howitzer" that fires a guided slug or HE round at between 1.5 and 2 km/s out of a smoothbore 60 caliber 155mm tube. As designed it is supposed to be capable of engaging most atmospheric air threats along with a surface2surface range of between 250 and 400km. I wouldn't normally care much about this sort of thing but aside from precision guided rounds and computerization we really haven't made much of a change to the howitzer in over a century so it is kind of interesting that the tech is getting to the point where things might progress a bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
bewbies posted:In mildly interesting future of artillery news I had a tech presentation today about a "next gen howitzer" that fires a guided slug or HE round at between 1.5 and 2 km/s out of a smoothbore 60 caliber 155mm tube. As designed it is supposed to be capable of engaging most atmospheric air threats along with a surface2surface range of between 250 and 400km. Is it some kind of railgun?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
bewbies posted:In mildly interesting future of artillery news I had a tech presentation today about a "next gen howitzer" that fires a guided slug or HE round at between 1.5 and 2 km/s out of a smoothbore 60 caliber 155mm tube. As designed it is supposed to be capable of engaging most atmospheric air threats along with a surface2surface range of between 250 and 400km. Okay, guided rounds good enough for AA is every kind of awesome. Any odds on it getting upgraded to take on non-maneuvering ballistic missiles while I'm in full  mode?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:"Some contemporary sources, including Wilhelmine of Bayreuth, claimed that Augustus had as many as 365 or 382 children. " The only thing the entire Saxon period in Poland is remembered for is the wild parties. "While Saxon is King, eat, drink, and loosen your belt", the saying goes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I'd argue the Habsburgs were actually the larger factor, given their historical role in the HRE. Go look at a map of the 19th century Austrian then Austro-Hungarian Empire and see which bits of it are in the HRE and which are not... Which was the larger factor is really kind of irrelevant, as they're both symptomatic of the larger issues that pulled the HRE apart. Those two are the big headliners, but just about everyone who was involved in the HRE also had interests outside of it. It's a gross simplification, of course, but as a napkin sketch of what made the HRE different from those areas that consolidated into modern nation-states the relative frequency of personal unions isn't a bad place to start. We also tend to think in terms of those two because of how the 19th century turned out. During that whole messy part of the mid-19th century when everyone was theorizing about how to form a German state and what its exact shape would be there was a lot of hand wringing over whether it would be a "large germany" encompassing all German speakers or a "small Germany" that avoided the crazy external entanglements that trying to bring the Austrians in would entail. It was also a question of whether Berlin or Vienna would end up dominating the German political scene.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:The only thing the entire Saxon period in Poland is remembered for is the wild parties. Which, let's be honest, is one of the more positive associations the Polish have with German rule
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
i can't see a wettin oppressing his/her way out of a wet paper bag
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i can't see a wettin oppressing his/her way out of a wet paper bag Well, the British royals since Queen Victoria are technically Wettins. From Wikipedia: "From King George I to Queen Victoria, the British Royal family was variously called House of Hanover, being a junior branch of the House of Brunswick-Lüneburg and thus part of the dynasty of the Guelphs. In the late 19th century, Queen Victoria charged the College of Heralds in England to determine the correct personal surname of her late husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha—and, thus, the proper surname of the royal family upon the accession of her son. After extensive research they concluded that it was Wettin, but this name was never used, either by the Queen or by her son or grandson, King Edward VII and King George V; they were simply called 'Saxe-Coburg-Gotha'. Severe anti-German sentiment during World War I led some influential members of the public quietly to question the loyalty of the Royal Family, because they had a German or German-sounding name. Advisors to King George V again searched for an acceptable surname for the British royal family, but Wettin was rejected as "unsuitably comic".[citation needed] By Order in Council, the name of the British royal family was legally changed to Windsor, prospectively for all time."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Is it some kind of railgun? This is chemically powered but railguns are all over the place with this sort of stuff also. They REALLY want to try one on the A7 Paladin. xthetenth posted:Okay, guided rounds good enough for AA is every kind of awesome. Any odds on it getting upgraded to take on non-maneuvering ballistic missiles while I'm in full That actually is a long term promise with all of this hypervelocity stuff but that'd be some pretty....incredible engineering.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
bewbies posted:This is chemically powered but railguns are all over the place with this sort of stuff also. They REALLY want to try one on the A7 Paladin. The C-RAM is capable of shooting down artillery and mortar shells through sheer volume of fire, so we know that we already have the technology to "see" their flight path and intercept them with a hail of 20mm slugs. From there, you just need to be able to improve the accuracy to one-shot reliability and translate that to a maneuverable shell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
shallowj posted:also, speaking of sovereignty, is there a clear end to when feudal allegiances no longer crossed "international" boundaries? This is going to be another post that is pretty much a summary based on understanding I gleaned from reading a bunch of different books over the years, like Wheatcroft's The Habsburgs, various Alison Weir books, and other secondary sources I don't even specifically remember, but: You're Charles V. You're a human being (who has a bad case of lower mandible prognathism). Separately from your physical person you are also Holy Roman Emperor, King of Spain, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, and a ton of other lesser titles. These titles are part of who you are, but you are all that connects them. They are formally separate administrative entities based around your capacity as the person who holds that title. There are separate households or courts in Madrid, Ghent, Vienna, and so forth that derive their authority from you and act as the government in their respective areas. Each of them has a different government, a different underlying legal structure which may be very different from the others, and so forth. This is what's called a personal union--the titles you hold are unified by your person but remain separate states. Think of the title like a hat. When you wear this hat, you are King of Spain, and all the guys who owe fealty to the King of Spain are your guys. When you wear that hat, you are Archduke of Austria, same thing. Except, I mean, you wear all the hats at the same time, so the metaphor doesn't 100% work. Sometimes these differences of law become very important. For example, Hanover and Great Britain were in personal union 1714-1837. Great Britain's laws of succession permitted queens, but Hanover was under Salic Law, which did not. She's not allowed to wear the hat. Therefore the titles were separated and Hanover went to her uncle Ernst August I. In some cases these personal unions can get very close, primarily when they remain unified in one person over a number of generations. e.g. the electors of Brandenburg just kept on being dukes of Prussia and, later, kings of Prussia. Eventually the closeness of the two led to them becoming pretty well integrated administratively. Spain is another example. Castile and Leon were originally separate kingdoms but they were in personal union for such a long time that they effectively fused, and then later on the same thing happened to the kingdom of Aragon. Even in cases where the titles remained administratively separate, there could be functional ties. For example, since you're one person, and all the money you get from your different titles belongs to you, you can use money from one place to do stuff in another place. Your Spanish and Burgundian inheritances are formally separate from the Austrian title that makes you eligible to be Holy Roman Emperor, but you can for sure use the income from the New World (Spain) and the Netherlands (Burgundy) to pay for armies that will fight wars of religion in the Empire. So to bring this back to a specific medieval topic, consider the Angevins. In his capacity as, say, Duke of Normandy, John the King of England does owe fealty to the King of France. But in his capacity as King of England, he doesn't. If you think this might cause problems, it does! If you think it can get really confusing, it did! It's even worse because multiple people can have reasonably good claims on a given title or piece of land. Philip II King of France covets Angevin lands in France. This leads him to supported the claim of Arthur of Brittany to the English throne. But he doesn't actually give a poo poo about that guy. He can trade that support for something he actually does want. He agrees to drop Arthur if John agrees that Philip II owns some land that they both have claims on. John then (probably) murders Arthur. Meanwhile Philip II still wants to take John's French poo poo, so he picks a fight and takes it by force. But he doesn't have legal title. So he summons John to stand trial for murdering Arthur of Brittany. As Duke of Normandy et cetera John is a sworn vassal of Philip II... his worst enemy in the world... so he's legally obligated to show up for this trial. However, as King of England, John is for sure not going to do that. Violation of his feudal vows are then the legal pretext for Philip II to revoke John's title to all his lands in France.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Wettin was rejected as "unsuitably comic".[citation needed] By Order in Council, the name of the British royal family was legally changed to Windsor, prospectively for all time." also why are the wettiner so hilarious and drunk and the windsors so...whatever they are
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 02:15
|
|