|
Koramei posted:The Romans had a fully professional army but there were professional soldiers earlier. I dunno about Sumer but by the New Kingdom in Egypt they start to be a permanent thing. I was coming to post that, allegedly a revolt by native Egyptian soldiers gave Amasis II the break needed to seize the throne.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
I don't know if we can comfortably say that the Romans had a fully professional army given that in just about every time frame we look at them they're heavily relying on auxiliary forces that could be described as 'irregulars', but that's true of most armed forces throughout history because that's just the sensible thing to do. However, this makes it hard to say what constitutes a conventional army for any pre-modern state. There are accounts from the Bible that are about insurgents fighting against a conventional army and winning (Maccabeus and depending on interpretations Exodus) that pre-date the Third Servile War.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:My knowledge of Sumerian history is pretty much nil, but i was working under the assumption that the first soldiers we would class as full time professionals were the Romans just because they were the first empire to reach a sort of size/organisation where having professional full time soldiers on a large (enough to be called an army) scale was plausible. Mesopotamia suffers from being less of a continuous cycle of empires than we're usually taught in schools. There were plenty of subdivisions within the specific cultural groups at the various periods and many states did not map one to one to Sumerians, or Babylonians, or Assyrians and so forth. One of the first rulers to have formed a standing army in recorded history was Shulgi of the Third Dynasty of Ur, a large empire spanning most of today's Iraq, but surrounded with enemies, fickle allies, or uncivilized nomads. Like all rulers of Mesopotamia in this period, his country named every year after his accomplishments, starting, as was the custom, with The Year Shulgi, the Lugal, Took the Throne. The first seventeen years of his reign were mostly peaceful. He built a lot of stuff (although, curiously, only a single canal, which were a big fad with his predecessors and successors), he burned a couple cities, he reformed his administration. Mundane. Then came The Year the Sons of Ur by Shulgi, the Lugal, Were Bound to Spears. I originally heard that it was the eighteenth year of his rule, Internet tells me now that it was the twentieth, the difference is largely meaningless. For the next years were: The Year Der Was Destroyed The Year Karhar Was Destroyed The Year Simurrum Was Destroyed The Year Simurrum Was Destroyed a Second Time The Year Harszi Was Destroyed The Year Karhar Was Destroyed a Second Time The Year Simurrum Was Destroyed the Third Time The Year Karhar Was Destroyed the Third Time The Year Anshan Was Destroyed The Year Shashrum Was Destroyed The Year Simurrum and Lullubum Were Destroyed for the Ninth Time The Year Shulgi, the Strong Man, the King of Ur, the King of the Four Quarters, Smashed the Heads of Urbilum, Simurrum, Lullubum and Karhar in a Single Campaign The Year Shulgi, the Strong Man, the King of Ur, the King of the Four Quarters, Destroyed Kimash, Hurti, and Their Territories in a Single Day The Year Kimash Was Destroyed a Second Time The Year Hurti Was Destroyed a Second Time (okay, some years were given two or three names depending on the scribe, and also there were some years that were named after something else. But Simurrum and Lullubum being clowned on nine times suggest that the clowning was still happening in the background.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
The Sumerians really liked their accounting, but also their bragging.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
They also didn't seem to understand what the word "destroyed" means.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Well What Now posted:They also didn't seem to understand what the word "destroyed" means. They got better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:technically, the guys i study are a warrior-politician society. It did work sort of well for Rome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
lol what the hell did you do to warrant that avatar
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Have terrible opinions about wallpaper, is it not obvious?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Koramei posted:lol what the hell did you do to warrant that avatar I think people keep giving me redtexts instead of the people they're talking to, because I've never discussed interior decorating on the forums at all. There's a few owl usernames so I assume there's someone in the DIY forum with a similar name who really likes fake bookcase wallpaper or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Well What Now posted:They also didn't seem to understand what the word "destroyed" means. Basically, the way it worked for the Sumerians was that there were a bunch of feuding city-states. Even though they were very similar culturally & linguistically, they were perpetually at odds. Each city-state ruled itself and the farmlands around it. The land and government in theory was controlled by the temples, although in practice there were certainly quasi-hereditary positions and powerful families interested in expanding their own influence within the state. Anyway, each city-state could call upon its own citizens for labor, both for civilian projects and for military adventures. Most of these military adventures involved rolling up to the neighboring city-states and demanding tribute; if they refused you got to fight them (or just steal their crops if they declined to fight). The winner would demand tribute, usually in the form of grain, silver, or labor. Also sometimes, slaves. Then everyone went home. The next year, you demanded tribute from the losers you beat up the previous year... sometimes they paid up to avoid a fight, sometimes you had to fight for it again. Actually storming a city seems to have been fairly rare, although it certainly happened on occasion; Lagash did it to Umma under Ea-nnatum (Vulture Stele guy), while Umma returned the favor a few decades later under Lugal-Zaggesi. Sometimes you got to install a friendly ruler in a conquered city, but once your army returned home they were on their own. So when they say they say 'destroyed' in that year list, they probably just mean that they beat the city's army and forced them to pay tribute. As far as whether the soldiers were 'standing armies', I would say no. They would have to go home for the harvest. Although while in service they were paid with rations and goods. The rank and file seem to have used spears and shields in the classic shield wall formation, while officers used axes and rode primitive chariots (where we got the vulture warriors of civ 4 and war-carts of civ 6). Bows were used, as were slings; large hoards of clay 'bullets' have been found. Towards the end of the Sumerian era, there are references to permanent military offices... Sargon appears to have been a junior officer before staging his coup, and later he boasted of being able to feed his army year-round. sullat fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
bewbies posted:an aside to this: the United States and much of the industrialized world that has adopted a totally volunteer military have nearly all developed a fairly discrete warrior classes. That's a pretty amazing revelation to me. I always heard stories of the atmosphere being totally different in military organization, but I never thought of it going deeper than just normal organizational structure and atmosphere along with working for the government as opposed to in the private sector. I think the idea of an everyman common person soldier has decayed in pop culture as well. These days they're normally either gung-ho action heroes or villainous jerks. So much of the 50s were defined by how so many people shared a bit of the soldier experience and now that's all gone. An army base in Baghdad might as well be the surface of the moon so far as a civilian like me is concerned. dublish posted:Grant wasn't nearly so bad as all that. People are rehabilitating his presidency because he's historically been maligned as corrupt when his administration was rather typical of the early-to-mid nineteenth century. That's still a pretty damning thing to say. Before Lincoln, there was a long run of waffling idiot presidents because no sane man would actually support slavery, but actually coming out against it was such a losing proposition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:
Actually being willing to come down hard on a side would likely result in the other side suddenly developing scruples and realizing that the way things have been for a long time is actually terrible, wouldn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Well What Now posted:They also didn't seem to understand what the word "destroyed" means. I suspect that the closer modern translation would be "wrecked". e: or I guess "rekt" in the full internet parlance. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 06:25
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:I suspect that the closer modern translation would be "wrecked". Yeah, the problem is not with the Sumerians, it's with the people who translated it into English.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I suspect that the closer modern translation would be "wrecked". I assumed it was "destroyed" in the Internet headline sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Actually being willing to come down hard on a side would likely result in the other side suddenly developing scruples and realizing that the way things have been for a long time is actually terrible, wouldn't it? It literally went so candidates who actively gave any indication of anti-slavery were shut down while those who got by making an absurd effort to not address the issue that was gripping the entire country got a free ride to the presidency, because they could play both sides of the divide. Why do you think Buchanan was such a spineless idiot about the secession? Being a spineless idiot is what got him elected in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:That's still a pretty damning thing to say. Before Lincoln, there was a long run of waffling idiot presidents because no sane man would actually support slavery, but actually coming out against it was such a losing proposition. I don't think it's particularly damning to say people in Grant's and other administrations were willing to use their positions for personal financial gain. It was an accepted feature of the spoils system, and accepted as a necessary evil until the 1860s when the increasing amounts of money at stake made the problem too big to ignore. I'm also not sure what anyone's stances on slavery had to do with that issue. When I said 'corrupt', I meant in a narrow graft sense and not a more general moral one. The big example that really got this whole tangent going was the Grant administration's record on civil rights, which was worlds away from both previous and later presidencies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I suspect that the closer modern translation would be "wrecked". Dunked. E: Dare I say, even decimated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
sullat posted:Basically, the way it worked for the Sumerians was that there were a bunch of feuding city-states. Even though they were very similar culturally & linguistically, they were perpetually at odds. Each city-state ruled itself and the farmlands around it. The land and government in theory was controlled by the temples, although in practice there were certainly quasi-hereditary positions and powerful families interested in expanding their own influence within the state. Anyway, each city-state could call upon its own citizens for labor, both for civilian projects and for military adventures. Most of these military adventures involved rolling up to the neighboring city-states and demanding tribute; if they refused you got to fight them (or just steal their crops if they declined to fight). The winner would demand tribute, usually in the form of grain, silver, or labor. Also sometimes, slaves. Then everyone went home. The next year, you demanded tribute from the losers you beat up the previous year... sometimes they paid up to avoid a fight, sometimes you had to fight for it again. There really needs to be a board game of this-!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
Well What Now posted:They also didn't seem to understand what the word "destroyed" means. I do admit it sounds like jokes for minecrafters
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:That's still a pretty damning thing to say. Before Lincoln, there was a long run of waffling idiot presidents because no sane man would actually support slavery, but actually coming out against it was such a losing proposition. You might be being hyperbolic but terming evil or complicity with evil as madness is one of the dumber verbal tics in current discourse. Not only does it legitimize stupid crap like armchair diagnosis of politicians with any range of stupid diseases because they disagree with you but it seeks to deny the fact that people, generally, are capable of outstanding cruelty under the right circumstances (though if you bring up the milgram or stanford prison experiments I will reach through the Internet and smack your dumb face) I'm not going to fix this huge ugly sentence. Ithle01 posted:I don't know if we can comfortably say that the Romans had a fully professional army given that in just about every time frame we look at them they're heavily relying on auxiliary forces that could be described as 'irregulars', but that's true of most armed forces throughout history because that's just the sensible thing to do. However, this makes it hard to say what constitutes a conventional army for any pre-modern state. There are accounts from the Bible that are about insurgents fighting against a conventional army and winning (Maccabeus and depending on interpretations Exodus) that pre-date the Third Servile War. The auxilia of the imperial period were not irregulars, they were just non-citizens. They were still part of the regular Roman army structure and had their own units and commanders etc. I don't think it's viable to talk about insurgency prior to the Treaty of Westphalia (and probably even after that but history gets fuzzy for me there) because there didn't exist a highly formal distinction between belligerents and non-belligerents, or combatants and non-combatants. If you were a peasant who decided to defend your poo poo with a billhook you were just as fair game as the guy in armor on horseback.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:it seeks to deny the fact that people, generally, are capable of outstanding cruelty under the right circumstances (though if you bring up the milgram or stanford prison experiments I will reach through the Internet and smack your dumb face) The larger issue is that not everyone has the background, cultural context, and attendant moral beliefs of an Internet Person on an English language comedy forum in 2016. One thing I like to emphasize to my students is that very, very few people actually think of themselves as the villains. Most people don't actually behave in ways that are inconsistent with their beliefs and, here's the sticker, if you actually believe that black people are inferior or that Jews are destroying your country or whatever then a lot of what we look on as morally repugnant evil becomes a merely distasteful feature of a necessary system. People don't do poo poo because they're evil, they do poo poo because it aligns with their beliefs and understanding of the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:People don't do poo poo because they're evil, they do poo poo because it aligns with their beliefs and understanding of the world. although i have little doubt that my subjects also believed killing is fun, the early modern period was, after all, the time when some writer (was it machiavelli?) defined pleasure as the emotion that goes along with satisfying your desire for revenge
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
I used to think that but I dunno, I think a lot of people are scumbags in such a way that might not be 'evil' but comes drat close. I mean it's not like beliefs about Jews and all the rest emerged in isolation. They often emerged because those beliefs were convenient to these people's selfish and immoral interests. So what do you say about the guys who thought Jews were inferior undermensch, but also had to be exterminated so that they don't somehow destroy the minority? What about the ones who think that black slaves were sheep to be led, who enjoyed slavery, and yet then pioneered laws and paid bounty hunters to chase after those slaves who escaped? What about the people who think there are too many questions and uncertainties around climate change to do anything about it, and yet work incessantly to shut down funding to climate research? I think sure, no one wants to think of themselves as monsters, but you should not understate the degree to which people can construct and reconstruct their beliefs to make sense of the conclusions they wanted to make, and spread those beliefs to facilitate those ends. IIRC anti Jewish sentiment in the middle ages was pretty well correlated to the degree of debt the government was in, and that's no coincidence. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:or they need to eat or defend themselves Question about your dudes and time period in general: Did anyone ever go on record as finding it hard to cope with the constant hyper-masculine atmosphere of the age? Like, did anyone write in a letter or diary that they were just sick of having to defend their honor constantly? I'm just wondering since it's sort of a similar situation to the period prior to WWI, where you would have guys like Conrad von Hoetzendorf rant constantly about how going to war with Serbia was the only manly thing to do and not wanting to teach the Serbs a lesson with violence was a coward. Only when he was in private he would write in his diary about he wanted to cry all the time and just wanted to spend time with his mistress instead of publicly clamouring for war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Fangz posted:So what do you say about the guys who thought Jews were inferior undermensch, but also had to be exterminated so that they don't somehow destroy the minority? What about the ones who think that black slaves were sheep to be led, who enjoyed slavery, and yet then pioneered laws and paid bounty hunters to chase after those slaves who escaped? What about the people who think there are too many questions and uncertainties around climate change to do anything about it, and yet work incessantly to shut down funding to climate research? The thing is that you're assuming their worldviews aren't consistent. I"ll speak to the Nazi one as it's the one that I'm most familiar with, but there is a very coherent internal logic to Nazi ideology. A lot of people point to a seeming disconnect between "subhuman degenerates" on the one hand and a pernicious force that must be rooted out lest it destroy the German race. The issue is that there is a whole underlying network of beliefs and in context it makes sense. When the Nazis spoke of "Racial Hygiene" it wasn't just a cute euphemism. They had a view of history that was predicated on it being a perpetual struggle for dominance in which the loser inevitably died off and perished. It was a racial understanding, so that took the center. This is why in their understanding a purebread Slav might be a natural enemy of the purebread German - competing as they do for land and resources - but was still superior to a mixed race individual who had lost all sense of their natural identity. Put into this context the Jews (and gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, etc - we focus on the Holocaust but this was never limited in the groups that they could consider dangerous others) are a dangerous pollutant destroying the German Volk from within. To strengthen the race and thus make it more fit for the world-historical struggle of races you need to eliminate those elements. The talk of "hygiene" isn't just because of connotations with cleanliness, it's born out of a moment in the early 20th century when we became aware why dirtyness kills - it's because of the small, seemingly insignificant viruses and bacteria that infect the body and weaken it. This is how you square the idea of the degenerate, weak, inferior being being a threat to the superior one. This is what I mean when I say that you have to understand the context that a person's beliefs and thinking emerged from. If you believe that all of the above is true then expelling - even exterminating - foreign elements in your society becomes rational and necessary. You can find a lot of writing from Germans involved in those decisions that paint the killing itself as a distasteful, unwelcome task that must be performed for the greater good. Think less the enthusiasm of a party rally and more the resigned culling of infected livestock by a farmer. Note that none of this means that we can't have our own opinions on the matter. Of loving course I think the Holocaust was a monstrous crime. There is a difference between passing judgement on an action and trying to understand it, however. Saying "they were evil" doesn't come to the root of what caused it or made it possible. You don't have to be an inherently evil person to do monstrously evil things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Question about your dudes and time period in general: Did anyone ever go on record as finding it hard to cope with the constant hyper-masculine atmosphere of the age? Like, did anyone write in a letter or diary that they were just sick of having to defend their honor constantly? like, it does sound like a remarkably exhausting way of life, even before you factor in the part where you're starving half the time HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:There really needs to be a board game of this-! King of Dragon Pass is a reasonable approximation. But with vikings, magic and cows. Lots of cows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
ltkerensky posted:King of Dragon Pass is a reasonable approximation. But with vikings, magic and cows. Lots of cows. KoDP is what made me nod sagely at that "What is the Sumarian word for war?" line in Arrival.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Note that none of this means that we can't have our own opinions on the matter. Of loving course I think the Holocaust was a monstrous crime. There is a difference between passing judgement on an action and trying to understand it, however. Saying "they were evil" doesn't come to the root of what caused it or made it possible. You don't have to be an inherently evil person to do monstrously evil things. I tend to get the impression that there's less people that are flat out evil and more people who are more susceptible to to the thinking that causes evil. It's not a comforting clean dichotomy where some people are good people and always going to be good and right, it's a degree of resistance, and if the whole world's hosed even the best people are going to be hosed to some degree. It's not comfortable, and a lot of people would rather have a simple and comfortable view.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:You might be being hyperbolic but terming evil or complicity with evil as madness is one of the dumber verbal tics in current discourse. Not only does it legitimize stupid crap like armchair diagnosis of politicians with any range of stupid diseases because they disagree with you but it seeks to deny the fact that people, generally, are capable of outstanding cruelty under the right circumstances (though if you bring up the milgram or stanford prison experiments I will reach through the Internet and smack your dumb face) I didn't mean to say that Grant was a bad person at all, but that saying he's typical for a president of his era is like insisting that you did pretty well in a footrace against people on crutches. Grant was respectably competent for being preceded by a sequence of incompetents before the war. I find actual moral judgements to be incredibly unuseful when looking at history. The most it does is further remove you from the mindset of the time by giving you the luxury to make sweeping judgements on situations that were more complex for contemporary people to deal with. Even more complex is the fact that many of the biggest atrocities that we're able to side against now were actually covered up a lot at the time. Even if the logical endpoint of the bulk of Nazi logic was to round up everybody in the holocaust for death, not every Nazi made it to the bottom of that slippery slope. Most Germans were only exposed to the phase where they were shoving the Jews into ghettos and maybe the occasional act of violence out against them. Once they were all rounded up and sent away on the trains, they were no longer the concern of the average German citizen, and it wasn't hard for them to maintain enough cognitive dissonance that some of them can still deny atrocities even today, in a WW2 museum. It was a similar deal with colonialism, the frontier where the worst things happen was far removed from most of civilization, so while they can support sending people out to the frontier, they don't need to necessarily know what they did out there. Without the visceral direct knowledge of what's going on that we have access to today, the direct repugnance we experience isn't there, and complexity creeps in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Man I'm loving the literal kruppstahl love. I wouldn't thought a guy who works in a museum wouldn't be an obvious source for wehrabingo but I guess I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Five minutes and the card's already 1/3 full. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Can you explain some of those?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:This is what I mean when I say that you have to understand the context that a person's beliefs and thinking emerged from. If you believe that all of the above is true then expelling - even exterminating - foreign elements in your society becomes rational and necessary. You can find a lot of writing from Germans involved in those decisions that paint the killing itself as a distasteful, unwelcome task that must be performed for the greater good. Think less the enthusiasm of a party rally and more the resigned culling of infected livestock by a farmer. I don't think you're getting my point here. I'm pointing out the existence of inconsistencies in their belief system as a broader point, which is that pretty often it is less incorrect to say that 'their beliefs led to this', than it is to say 'their actions led to these beliefs to justify them'. To fit in a society like Nazi Germany and the Wehrmacht, it is often the case that you end up doing many, many horrible things, or at least turn your blind eye to them. It was simply psychologically easier to construct a system of justification around these fact, so that you don't have to consider your own choices. Look at how those veterans moved smoothly from one belief (the soviets were terrible, we were just trying to defend Europe from Bolshevism, we never did the things the Soviets did, it would have been impossible) to a new belief (Okay, partisans are a breach of international law which makes everything justified to deal with them, yeah okay we were in the Netherlands also but this was just a mistake we should have asked permission) when the woman raised a new fact. I agree that talking about 'inherent evil' is not that great. But I don't think 'oh these people had a belief system where their actions were totally noble' is meaningful given the abundant evidence that these belief systems can be constructed during or after the fact. As another example, wasn't it pretty much true that the idea of white man's burden *followed* colonialism, not led to it? Fangz fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Can you explain some of those? Which ones?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:One thing I like to emphasize to my students is that very, very few people actually think of themselves as the villains. Most people don't actually behave in ways that are inconsistent with their beliefs and, here's the sticker, if you actually believe that black people are inferior or that Jews are destroying your country or whatever then a lot of what we look on as morally repugnant evil becomes a merely distasteful feature of a necessary system. So, random question: who actually thinks of themselves as villains? Just curious. Nietzsche thought that the way people thought about good and evil could be broken down in two different ways: as synonyms for "good and bad", and as terms of praise and pejorative. The former was actually quite valid, since it was rooted in the perspective of a culture, group, or person, while the latter sought an objective* viewpoint and thus was not. You can also define good and evil in the descriptive or if you prefer DnD alignment sense, but of course what counts as what is of course based on a cultural thing. *"Objective" in this case means not fact based, but rather a "perspective-less" viewpoint that is unquestionable, IE the objective truth of socialism, religion, the market etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Man I'm loving the literal kruppstahl love. I wouldn't thought a guy who works in a museum wouldn't be an obvious source for wehrabingo but I guess I'm wrong. The war museum in Ottawa parrots the Ronsons myth, working in a museum sadly doesn't prevent lazy scholarship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The war museum in Ottawa parrots the Ronsons myth, working in a museum sadly doesn't prevent lazy scholarship. gently caress, I didn't notice that when I was there. I was too busy gushing to a fellow visitor over how the Sherman was totally underrated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:55
|
|