|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:also im just gonna posit that dying is a pretty bad way to go anyhow, even in our highly modern times inshallah
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
hacking dudes to pieces with axes and swords was pretty cool. but seeing a bunch of goat fuckers murder each other with high explosives while recording it in high def for the world is pretty metal too. 4K video didn't happen soon enough, I wish I had that poo poo for my Iraq deployment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 04:17
|
|
Internet Wizard posted:Like the Hague Accord even bans the most humane bullet designs because they were too uncivilized and for some reason we still abide by it. you mean the ones that dont penetrate the skin?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Umm except dying on a medieval battlefield (or any battlefield pre 20th century) means basically dying in the most horrific ways possible including Medieval (and earlier) casualty rates were generally lower than modern conventional warfare. There are exceptions in certain battles like Crecy, Teutoberg Forest, and the like, where one side was effectively wiped out because they couldn't even retreat. But those are the exception, and that's why you've ever heard of them. Casualty rates get even lower in prehistoric warfare, which is part of why people were quick to buy into the idea that prehistoric combat was largely ceremonial (which is bs). Mechanized warfare, which started to rear its head during the Civil War and distilled around the turn of the 20th century, was absolutely brutal and put previous forms of warfare to shame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
otoh, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heated_shot#Molten_iron_shells
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Medieval (and earlier) casualty rates were generally lower than modern conventional warfare. There are exceptions in certain battles like Crecy, Teutoberg Forest, and the like, where one side was effectively wiped out because they couldn't even retreat. But those are the exception, and that's why you've ever heard of them. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Reading up on the Greco-Persian Wars, it becomes pretty clear that you were pretty safe as long as the phalanx held, but if things started to go awry, you have a good chance of being stabbed in the back as everybody around you ran away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
yea but mass melee combat was a loving nightmare for the first couple ranks no matter who won
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
War. War.. sorta changes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
I forgot where exactly I read this but it was for one of those "history of this saying." Thing. Anyways it was last stand or something or another, and it basically described that it was the very last location to fall back to, and you'd more than likely end up dying there playing for the home team. Let us not forget the biological and psychological nightmare of trebucheting dead bodies and various parts over walls spreading sickness, terror, and vermin about. Siege warfare was horrendous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
speaking of which hardcore history is it where the roman soldiers buried their own heads to suffocate themselves rather than waiting for the winners to kill them
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
was one of the punic nightmares episodes where carlin was talking about cannae
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:was one of the punic nightmares episodes where carlin was talking about cannae cool took me a week to listen through the muenster one but it was very good and didnt know what to listen to next
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
I read somewhere once that the Battle of Cannae (that massive spike on the left side of that chart) had the largest amount of kills per unit time (ie deaths per minute) of any event in history until we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. It could be bullshit, and I'll be damned if I'm going to try and research it to find out, but I find it very believable. It was crazy brutal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Cannae is one of those battles where everything just sounds completely made up, but is probably pretty loving accurate. Hell, it's probably the greatest example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Ok, gonna go look this up
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY-Hcr4bB3U
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
Soulex posted:Ok, gonna go look this up After kicking Roman rear end multiple times, Hannibal was well-established as a military leader. He was ravaging Italy at will, while mediocre Roman forces acted more or less like speedbumps. Rome figured out they weren't going to win in a straight fight until they bled his army dry...the Carthaginians were obviously far from home so reinforcements weren't coming. Consul Fabius played his role well, gradually attriting Hannibal's army, but this wasn't a popular strategy because in the meantime the Roman countryside was being destroyed, so he was replaced by Paullus and Varro (co-consuls on a campaign like this was loving stupid) leading a massive army of roughly 100,000. They hosed up (mostly Varro's fault iirc) and got thrown into a pitched battle with their backs against a goddamned lake and were wiped out with something like 90% killed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
All because they marched in nice orderly lines right into the middle of the other army (which was smaller than the roman army) and got enveloped.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
Godholio posted:After kicking Roman rear end multiple times, Hannibal was well-established as a military leader. He was ravaging Italy at will, while mediocre Roman forces acted more or less like speedbumps. Rome figured out they weren't going to win in a straight fight until they bled his army dry...the Carthaginians were obviously far from home so reinforcements weren't coming. Consul Fabius played his role well, gradually attriting Hannibal's army, but this wasn't a popular strategy because in the meantime the Roman countryside was being destroyed, so he was replaced by Paullus and Varro (co-consuls on a campaign like this was loving stupid) leading a massive army of roughly 100,000. They hosed up (mostly Varro's fault iirc) and got thrown into a pitched battle with their backs against a goddamned lake and were wiped out with something like 90% killed. there was no lake at cannae, you are thinking of trasimene  at cannae, the carthaginian cavalry on both flanks routed their inferior roman counterparts and chased them off the field. the romans had deployed their infantry in depth, while hannibal deployed his men in a crescent, with the flanks reinforced. the center gave ground on purpose in order to draw the romans in while the flanks were enveloped. it was actually risky because the troops he had in the center were his least reliable and by some accounts their feinting retreat almost turned into a rout. after all this, the carthaginian cavalry returned from chasing the roman horse from the field and charge into the back, completing the total encirclement of the romans and starting the slaughter that lasted until evening 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Butts posted:cool The American Peril is a pretty good one. "We will liberate the benighted brown people from the Spaniard's brutal imperialism" "...ah, OK, turns out this brutal imperialism thing is actually pretty sweet, really liking it"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Rome figured out they weren't going to win in a straight fight until they bled his army dry...the Carthaginians were obviously far from home so reinforcements weren't coming. Consul Fabius played his role well, gradually attriting Hannibal's army... For those who don't already know, this guy was the namesake of "The Fabian Strategy." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
Oh don't get me wrong not saying that modern warfare isn't brutal either and the casualty rates from early WW1 battles are simply  Like the French losing a quarter million men in a WEEK in the opening days of the Battles of the Frontier because they still thought that red pants, white gloves, kepis and "Attaque a outrance" (Attack to excess) was a winning strategy against machine guns and artillery. If I had to decide on how I died though; being in the center of the Roman lines at Cannae and literally waiting hours for some Carthaginian to kill me or getting stuck in the mud at Flanders and going slowly insane as I sink deeper and deeper day after day...gently caress it, I'd take Cannae. At least that's only one real lovely day of waiting instead of drowning in mud.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:I read somewhere once that the Battle of Cannae (that massive spike on the left side of that chart) had the largest amount of kills per unit time (ie deaths per minute) of any event in history until we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. C-c-c-c-COMBOOOOO
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:I read somewhere once that the Battle of Cannae (that massive spike on the left side of that chart) had the largest amount of kills per unit time (ie deaths per minute) of any event in history until we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. I'm not 100% sure, but the Battle of Borodino during the Napoleonic invasion of Russia was described as "A fully loaded 747 crashing with no survivors every 5 minutes for eight hours", which would make it a pretty strong contender.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Medieval (and earlier) casualty rates were generally lower than modern conventional warfare. There are exceptions in certain battles like Crecy, Teutoberg Forest, and the like, where one side was effectively wiped out because they couldn't even retreat. But those are the exception, and that's why you've ever heard of them. By definition you have no way of knowing if the bolded part is true or not since there are no records and no convincing excavated prehistoric battle grounds. The idea that casualty rates would be lower (and the ritualised/formalised performance of combat - which is not the same as 'ceremonial' at all) is extrapolated from ethnographic studies of living cultures ie. Gardens of War, etc. Source: I am a prehistoric archaeologist. Distrust all sweeping definitive statements about prehistory, all we have are plausible stories that are liable to change at any point. Also pmsl if you think that contemporary sources for ancient battles will be free of hyperbole, exaggeration and propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
That's metal as gently caress. I was watching and reading up on it, and as soon as I saw his strategy I nodded my head in approval. I was like "dude knows whats up." Because it wasn't just the formation, it was knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the varying troops he had and applied them as such. I'm gonna have to do some more reading on Hannibal. I havne't really looked into a warlord biography yet. I was thinking of starting with Ghengis Kahn because Marco Polo on Netflix has me hooked to that poo poo, and I know his rise to power was :metal: as gently caress too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Soulex posted:That's metal as gently caress. I was watching and reading up on it, and as soon as I saw his strategy I nodded my head in approval. I was like "dude knows whats up." Because it wasn't just the formation, it was knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the varying troops he had and applied them as such. I'm gonna have to do some more reading on Hannibal. I havne't really looked into a warlord biography yet. I was thinking of starting with Ghengis Kahn because Marco Polo on Netflix has me hooked to that poo poo, and I know his rise to power was :metal: as gently caress too. It's hard to tell who to admire more: Hannibal, for kicking so much rear end for 10 years; or the guys who got their asses kicked for 10 years, never surrendered, and ultimately ended up winning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Vengarr posted:It's hard to tell who to admire more: Hannibal, for kicking so much rear end for 10 years; or the guys who got their asses kicked for 10 years, never surrendered, and ultimately ended up winning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Varro is the ultimate military idiot, honestly. Dude was dumb as gently caress and got a lot of his dudes killed because he was a shmuck who didn't listen to a guy very obviously smarter than him.Soulex posted:That's metal as gently caress. I was watching and reading up on it, and as soon as I saw his strategy I nodded my head in approval. I was like "dude knows whats up." Because it wasn't just the formation, it was knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the varying troops he had and applied them as such. I'm gonna have to do some more reading on Hannibal. I havne't really looked into a warlord biography yet. I was thinking of starting with Ghengis Kahn because Marco Polo on Netflix has me hooked to that poo poo, and I know his rise to power was :metal: as gently caress too. You should definitely do a lot of reading on him, because Hannibal was badass as gently caress. I think he was 17 or maybe even a bit younger (12?) when his father made him swear a literal blood oath to never be a friend of the Romans and to fight them to his death. In addition to that he was a military leader who is practically unrivaled and stands easily among Alexander and Ghengis Khan. Thump! fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Thump! posted:Varro is the ultimate military idiot, honestly. Dude was dumb as gently caress and got a lot of his dudes killed because he was a shmuck who didn't listen to a guy very obviously smarter than him. He had some pretty badass last words, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
hannibal is definitely in the top 5-10 military geniuses of all time, but scipio africanus kicked his rear end at zama with a smaller army and was never defeated
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Agrippa has always been under appreciated, not only did he fight literally every enemy of Augustus and win convincing battles, he also ended up siring about 2/3rds of Rome's Emperors indirectly which is insane considering his family were all plebes before he buddied up with Octavian
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:hannibal is definitely in the top 5-10 military geniuses of all time, but scipio africanus kicked his rear end at zama with a smaller army and was never defeated Yeah, true. I guess I always felt bad for Hannibal since he was always given a shitstick to work with when dealing with the Romans and he made it work like a motherfucker. Scipio was very badass though, definitely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Booblord Zagats posted:Agrippa has always been under appreciated, not only did he fight literally every enemy of Augustus and win convincing battles, he also ended up siring about 2/3rds of Rome's Emperors indirectly which is insane considering his family were all plebes before he buddied up with Octavian Also insanely loyal, and pretty much omnicompetent. Compare the trust and power Augustus gave him with any other Roman emperor. or to quote the A/T thread about Roman history Jerusalem posted:Augustus: Agrippa, hold the One Ring for me while I turn my back and stand by this precipice over a fiery chasm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Okay, a quick look on wikipedia has 20% casualties for Antietam and 28% for Gettysburg so I'm not sure about that graph.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
I'm also curious as to why no other WW1 battles are on that list.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:51
|
|
MA-Horus posted:I'm also curious as to why no other WW1 battles are on that list. because its a percentage wwi battles were fought with hundreds of divisions.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
edit: the somme should have made the list but maybe since it spanned 6 months or so they left it off. edit2: pretty much every battle from guadalcanal on in the pacific could have made the list. japanese experiencing like 90%+ casualties in all of them. vains fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:there was no lake at cannae, you are thinking of trasimene Ah, hell, you're right. One look at that map and the only possible response is "What the gently caress?!" EmptyVessel posted:By definition you have no way of knowing if the bolded part is true or not since there are no records and no convincing excavated prehistoric battle grounds. The idea that casualty rates would be lower (and the ritualised/formalised performance of combat - which is not the same as 'ceremonial' at all) is extrapolated from ethnographic studies of living cultures ie. Gardens of War, etc. Fair enough. But I prefer to discount the ideas of the early modern philosophers who started the noble savage garbage to begin with, considering they were mostly concerned with their own nationalist or religious agendas. As a general rule I agree about sweeping definitive statements. I'll admit War Before Civilization is the best work I've read in this area; it's not really where I've focused, but I thought Keeley made a lot of strong arguments. Godholio fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:49
|
|