|
Victorian-style honor dueling is one thing, but in Germany there was mensur, which wasn't so much fighting to claim victory over one another as it was fighting to get cool facial scars. No flinching or dodging, just take that blade to the face like a man. And the weirdest part of it all is that it's still around in the modern day, despite the attempts by the Nazis to stop it.
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Victorian-style honor dueling is one thing, but in Germany there was mensur, which wasn't so much fighting to claim victory over one another as it was fighting to get cool facial scars. No flinching or dodging, just take that blade to the face like a man. We've talked about it a bit in the past here and in the fencing thread, but could you go into detail on the nazi era suppression? Because in the modern era it's unfortunately got a bit of a reputation for attracting gross cryptofascists, so I'm curious now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
I know I like to take digs at the Polish, but I can't hate this guys steez:
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
A good article: cleaning up after WW2. Also, y' gotta figure the scrap metal market was flooded in the late '40s. Lol at that one guy buying a field full of wreckage and letting it sit, waiting for scrap prices to increase.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Was dueling common in the American west, and was it as cool as it looked in the movies?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
i think i've met those dudes they're saluting in this pic btw, that's how you salute with a pike. the position's called "port", but it's nothing like modern port arms
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:very short, sometimes have a hook as well as a spearpoint Surely that's just a boathook?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Was dueling common in the American west, and was it as cool as it looked in the movies? Relatively common, especially among the barge crewmen you see on the Mississippi and Missouri. Think less six guns at high noon and more knife fights in a ditch. A lot of it comes out of late 18th/early 19th century Southern culture, which had a form of dueling culture in the working/farming classes that people back then called "rough and tumble" The short version is that if you got into an argument you would throw down for a wrestling match where the end goal was to maim the other one, usually by taking an eye but biting off a nose or ear wasn't uncommon either. It's this that gets exported to the western frontier - which then was the west bank of the Mississippi. Think the Davie Crockett set. As I recall he wrote about gouging some guys eyes out in a few of his things that have survived. The important bit is that this fighting was explicitly about honor and social position. These guys weren't jumping each other to steal their wallets, they were squaring off after one of them felt insulted. Hey Gail's dudes would have 100% understood the vibe. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Aug 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The important bit is that this fighting was explicitly about honor and social position. These guys weren't jumping each other to steal their wallets, they were squaring off after one of them felt insulted. Hey Gail's dudes would have 100% understood the vibe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
On a completely different subject, I've heard many times that the wide proliferation of guns and cars in the pre-WWII US compared to that of the other powers was a major advantage for training troops. According to the claims, having so many men already knowing how to drive, perform basic mechanical work (from working on the cars, which needed a lot more maintenance than those of today), and comprehend the basics of operating a firearm meant that training in those tasks went a lot faster, and allowed a higher standard of training than other armies were sometimes forced to accept. This sounds plausible to me, but plausibility is not enough to say something is confirmed, and I'm wondering if there was any documented evidence for or against this idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:On a completely different subject, I've heard many times that the wide proliferation of guns and cars in the pre-WWII US compared to that of the other powers was a major advantage for training troops. According to the claims, having so many men already knowing how to drive, perform basic mechanical work (from working on the cars, which needed a lot more maintenance than those of today), and comprehend the basics of operating a firearm meant that training in those tasks went a lot faster, and allowed a higher standard of training than other armies were sometimes forced to accept. This is definitely true. Drivers were desperately needed by all participants, and Russia in particular placed drivers/mechanics higher on the totem pole than most basic grunts. Experienced drivers were the first to be integrated into tank and supply units. The same went for pilots. Glider schools were prevalent back in those days (as well as the barnstormers of yesteryear) and it helped form an experienced core once people were mobilized.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:it's not that my guys don't steal peoples' wallets tho If someone stole your wallet, did you have to duel them, or could you just kill them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:This is definitely true. Drivers were desperately needed by all participants, and Russia in particular placed drivers/mechanics higher on the totem pole than most basic grunts. Experienced drivers were the first to be integrated into tank and supply units. Is it true that the Wehrmacht operated basically on the opposite principle? Like, preferred sending the best and brightest into combat? (I assume if you had a specific skill like engineering that'd take precedent, but say compared to the modern ASVAB where a very low scorer still nets "Infantry".)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Is it true that the Wehrmacht operated basically on the opposite principle? Like, preferred sending the best and brightest into combat? Not entirely sure, myself, to be honest. From what I know, its more "This guy is really good at shooting down planes, lets keep him on the frontlines so that he can shoot down more planes"! and then he never gets time off and doesnt train new pilots/tank commanders/etc and they all suck more for it. Edit: And, in more Luftwaffe shenanigans, the best pilots went to bomber squadrons. This would eventually bite them in the rear end, and the worsening war situation relegated more and more pilots to fighter or fighter-bomber roles
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Is it true that the Wehrmacht operated basically on the opposite principle? Like, preferred sending the best and brightest into combat? Not really. In WW1 the German Army used Stormtroopers as a conscious decision to pack 'assault' divisions with the cream of the infantry and use them in the first waves of their attacks to break the enemy lines while the follow up divisions consolidated and reduced bypassed strongpoints. This was extremely effective but also meant accepting enormous casualties in the Stormtrooper divisions which weren't sustainable and left the German army in a pretty bad place once their 1918 offensives ran out of steam. e: ^^ the Luftwaffe definitely developed tactics around supporting their Experten, which is great if you are a fascist state looking for ubermensch propaganda examples but not so good if you want a whole force that can fight a war of attrition. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Aug 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:On a completely different subject, I've heard many times that the wide proliferation of guns and cars in the pre-WWII US compared to that of the other powers was a major advantage for training troops. According to the claims, having so many men already knowing how to drive, perform basic mechanical work (from working on the cars, which needed a lot more maintenance than those of today), and comprehend the basics of operating a firearm meant that training in those tasks went a lot faster, and allowed a higher standard of training than other armies were sometimes forced to accept. There's also the CCC. It produced several million fit American men used to something approximate to military life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:There's also the CCC. It produced several million fit American men used to something approximate to military life. All of that is way overblown. 3 million men filtered through it over 9 years, so a lot of the first guys would be a tad old for military service.The US army alone peaked at close to 12 million men, with almost half that amount again in the Navy and USMC. The rapid and effective expansion of the US Army from 1940-1945 has far less to do with how many cars or guns we had or the CCC and way more to do with the loving immense effort put in to effective training. This ranged from extensive basic training facilities all over the country on up to rotating combat vets back to serve as instructors at a rate not seen in any other service.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:i think i've met those dudes It is, however, compatible with port the beverage
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Relatively common, especially among the barge crewmen you see on the Mississippi and Missouri. Think less six guns at high noon and more knife fights in a ditch. A lot of it comes out of late 18th/early 19th century Southern culture, which had a form of dueling culture in the working/farming classes that people back then called "rough and tumble" The short version is that if you got into an argument you would throw down for a wrestling match where the end goal was to maim the other one, usually by taking an eye but biting off a nose or ear wasn't uncommon either. It's this that gets exported to the western frontier - which then was the west bank of the Mississippi. Think the Davie Crockett set. As I recall he wrote about gouging some guys eyes out in a few of his things that have survived. Oh wow, so...cooler than the movies, actually. The game of thrones guys should make a series about brawlin' barge boys instead of the bad slavery thing they're planning to do, I'd watch that
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Every time I hear mention of those kind of duels I imagine that one fight in Deadwood.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Trials of PzIIs in the USSR Queue: Marder II, Field modifications to American tanks, Israeli improvised armoured cars, Trials of the TKS and C2P in the USSR, Polish 37 mm anti-tank gun, T-37 with ShKAS, Wartime modifications of the T-37 and T-38, Tank destroyers on the T-30 and T-40 chassis, 45 mm M-42 gun, SU-76 prototype, ZIK-7 and other light SPG designs, SU-26/T-26-6, SU-122 precursors, SU-122 competitors, Light Tank M5, Medium Tank M3, Tankbuchse 41, s.FH. 18, PzVII Lowe, Tiger #114, Chrysler K, A1E1 Independent, Valentine I-IV, Swedish tanks 1928–1934, Strv 81 and Strv 101, Pak 97/38, 7.5 cm Pak 41, Czechoslovakian post-war prototypes, Praga AH-IV, KV-1S, KV-13, Bazooka, Super Bazooka, Matilda, 76 mm gun mod of the Matilda, Renault FT, Somua, SU-122, SU-122M, KV-13 to IS, T-60 factory #37, D.W. and VK 30.01(H), Wespe and other PzII SPGs, Pz38(t) in the USSR Available for request:  IM-1 squeezebore cannon GAZ-71 and GAZ-72 Production and combat of the KV-1S NEW  25-pounder Churchill II-IV  105 mm howitzer M2A1 NEW  Pz.Sfl.V Sturer Emil PzII Ausf. G-H 15 cm sIG 33 NEW  Prospective French wartime tanks NEW  L-10 and L-30 Strv m/40 Strv m/42 Landsverk prototypes 1943-1951 Strv m/21 Strv m/41 pvkv m/43
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Tias posted:I still wish you'd come by, you know. We got pikes in our war museum, though it's mainly sea power artifacts now Don't be dissing on sea power, son.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Don't be dissing on sea power, son. Tias is Scandinavian of some variety, isn't he? Kinda hard to be a major sea power when Britain stands between your country and the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Every time I hear mention of those kind of duels I imagine that one fight in Deadwood. Dan Dority vs. Captain Turner is a really great scene, one of the most "real" I can remember seeing in film or TV. The writers did a good job of setting up over the episode why it was an affair of honor, why it had to take place in public, in the street, why it had rules instead of just being a murder. To that point in the series both characters had committed murders, even of helpless people and children, but their duel is clearly governed by some kind of code. But at the same time, there are no holds barred and they're absolutely trying to kill each other. Talking about formal duels, I've read mostly about late 18th century and onward. I don't think any of this really applies to the kind of situation she is really talking about, because her guys are earlier on, even more concerned about personal honor, and also gambling and drinking heavily on a daily basis. Anyway, according to what I've read duels are mostly about showing up and demonstrating that you're serious about your personal honor. They were structured events involving the principals, who were the people dueling, and the seconds, who were backing up the principals. The main function of the second was actually to persuade the principal not to have the duel at all, and apparently most aristocratic-type "duels" ended without violence. The seconds would persuade their friends that it wasn't worth dying over. They would show up at the field of combat, demonstrating that they were willing to die over the offense, which in itself was enough to establish their personal honor, and then one or both of the parties would apologize and that was the thing. Other times it would actually proceed to violence, and somebody would take a wound, and then say uncle. This is much the same thing, only with a little more determination to prove your seriousness. Somebody asked about aiming in a duel with pistols: often the objective was not really to hurt the other guy, but to show up and stand bravely when the pistol was fired at you, thus showing that you had honor, nerve, grit, whatever. Usually each person would discharge their weapon without aiming, and they would agree it was fine. "Barry Lyndon" actually has a great example of this at the end of the film. There's a duel with pistols, and Lyndon's opponent fucks up and wastes his shot. Lyndon has the guy's life in his hands, can do pretty much whatever, and he chooses to fire his own pistol into the wall as a gesture. And then the guy reloads his pistol and shoots Barry Lyndon in the leg... because gently caress him, right? Anyway, there are accounts of people who dueled frequently and repeatedly pursued the point to the extent of grievous bodily harm or death. Andrew Jackson is probably the most immediately famous example of this. Sometimes high school American History textbooks will try to excuse him by saying that dueling was an accepted cultural practice in the early 19th century. This is semi-correct. Dueling was a known practice in the early USA, explicitly illegal in many places but that was a law frequently ignored. At the same time, a normal person would never engage in a duel, and a person who did duel would duel once in his entire life. Andrew Jackson fought an insane number of duels and it appears that he was often trying to kill or seriously maim his opponents, whereas they may not have been. Usually the textbooks are trying to imply that he was a normal kinda guy, maybe a little extreme, but not outside the bounds of society. Most likely there was something seriously wrong with him. He's not the only compulsive duelist to appear in the historical record. If you think about it, antisocial personality disorder (sociopathy) is present at varying levels in the population, and if a person has that issue and is born into a level of society where dueling is a means of conflict resolution, he can wind up at an advantage provided he stays lucky. After all, his opponents are just showing up because they have to, whereas he really wants to hurt them. He's not even playing the same sport. Schenck v. U.S. fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Aug 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Schenck v. U.S. posted:Dan Dority vs. Captain Turner is a really great scene, one of the most "real" I can remember seeing in film or TV. The writers did a good job of setting up over the episode why it was an affair of honor, why it had to take place in public, in the street, why it had rules instead of just being a murder. What are you talking about? They're both dogsbodies, it's two hit-men trying to kill each other because Turner's boss ordered him to pick a fight with the other and try to kill him. That's not a duel, it's a hit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 03:51
|
|
Phanatic posted:What are you talking about? They're both dogsbodies, it's two hit-men trying to kill each other because Turner's boss ordered him to pick a fight with the other and try to kill him. That's not a duel, it's a hit. Your memory of the series appears to be conspicuously lousy. They obviously want to fight eachother for reasons totally external to work. That's made very clear.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:What are you talking about? They're both dogsbodies, it's two hit-men trying to kill each other because Turner's boss ordered him to pick a fight with the other and try to kill him. That's not a duel, it's a hit. This is fictional so I don't want to waste a bunch of time breaking it down, but obviously you agree that Turner and Dority are both murderers. Each of them has previously killed helpless, unarmed people at the behest of their superiors. Turner had been shown killing unarmed Welsh miners for trying to organize, so clearly he had no compunction in that area. And Dority had killed many people for Swearingen, including the unarmed, and unsuspecting. He was even willing to kill helpless children, if it came to it. Here is a scene where Hearst reads a written challenge from Dority to Turner for a fight: "come scare me in the thoroughfare." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkLWn5C4Ws4&t=28s Hearst specifically instructs Turner to make the fight a show, for the benefit of the people watching. The fight itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blki-DISUis&t=7s Dority doesn't ambush Turner when he is sleeping, or eating breakfast, or when he is in the outhouse taking a poo poo. This isn't a quirk of the plot, because the same show disposed of prominent characters in just such unceremonious circumstances. Instead they settle it in the center of Deadwood in the middle of the day, in front of everybody. Before the fight, Dority shows that he is discarding his gun and his knife. Turner agrees, with a clear nod of acknowledgement, to do the same. If it was a hit, why wouldn't Turner gun Dority down right then? He had disarmed himself. Or why didn't Dority shoot him in the back from concealment, or at night? In a later episode they elaborate this further. Hearst tries to tell Dority that he only won the fight because Turner was holding back, but Dority knows better--he was actually fighting Turner to the death, and he knew exactly what was going on. The whole point of the scene is a public display between Hearst and Swearengen, with their respective champions meeting for a rough-and-tumble brawl to the death.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Tias is Scandinavian of some variety, isn't he? Kinda hard to be a major sea power when Britain stands between your country and the ocean. Their own drat fault for saxoning and viking up the isles in the first place
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
There's a lot of psychological build up where it's clear there's trepidation but they also want to see which of them is tougher.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
I am pretty sure the miners being killed off were Cornish, not Welsh.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 06:16
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I am pretty sure the miners being killed off were Cornish, not Welsh. Yep.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Not really. In WW1 the German Army used Stormtroopers as a conscious decision to pack 'assault' divisions with the cream of the infantry and use them in the first waves of their attacks to break the enemy lines while the follow up divisions consolidated and reduced bypassed strongpoints. This was extremely effective but also meant accepting enormous casualties in the Stormtrooper divisions which weren't sustainable and left the German army in a pretty bad place once their 1918 offensives ran out of steam. The Italians set up something similar in 1917. Arditi stormed trenches primarily with knives and grenades, given covering fire by LMGs. Apparently they took "significant" casualties in the year they were in service and would have experienced complete turnover if they had lasted for three years. Then some of them took part in the occupation of Fiume and created the blackshirt uniform the Fascists created later on. Their knife fighting is interesting, because it's left arm forward, with the assumption your opponent with go for it and probably hit, so you use your right hand, dagger in an ice pick grip to go for their vitals. At Fightcamp I got to take part in melee fighting and trench raiding. In trench raiding I killed two people! Stabbed one and then tripped when struck with a bayonet, so I punched someone with the basket of my dagger as I fell. Melee fighting was enlightening. It's now quite easy to understand how one unit can flank another, quite easily. And the unit will struggle to turn around to meet the threat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Don't be dissing on sea power, son. It's envy, really. We had a bunch of cool poo poo, but retarded leadership, which means losing the Sweden is the only kind of military experience Denmark has, and, er, we have a LOT of military experience 
Tias fucked around with this message at 09:47 on Aug 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I am pretty sure the miners being killed off were Cornish, not Welsh. What's the difference between the Cornish and the Welsh? Not trying to play a dumbass here: as far as I can tell in distant California it seems they're both celtic cultures that managed to survive the Normans. e: so welshmen and conrwallers(?) please don't be pissed at mean Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Aug 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
Tias posted:It's envy, really. We had a bunch of cool poo poo, but retarded leadership, which means losing the Sweden is the only kind of military experience Denmark has, and, er, we have a LOT of military experience That's not true! We've also had our fleet stolen by the British, fought a civil war, and got beat by a peasant republic  .
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 10:28
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:What's the difference between the Cornish and the Welsh? Not trying to play a dumbass here: as far as I can tell in distant California it seems they're both celtic cultures that managed to survive the Normans. What the gently caress is this post?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 10:34
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:What the gently caress is this post? I legit mean it; suspect someone who knows what the gently caress they're talking about is going to kick my rear end with some facts now. I had previously believed that Wales and Cornwall were celtic prior to William's invasion and, not understanding more than that but suspecting I was wrong, was hoping that someone would prove my wrongness. basically I posted some stuff that my family taught me but I suspected was wrong so that people who know more than I can correct my poo poo e: figured that since posing a question was a bad idea (esp since I'm not sure how to even pose the quesstion I want an answer to), I'd just pose an answer that kinda sucked so someone who knows their poo poo could take it down. And please do. I am not only ignorant but also stupid. Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Aug 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I legit mean it; suspect someone who knows what the gently caress they're talking about is going to kick my rear end with some facts now. I had previously believed that Wales and Cornwall were celtic prior to William's invasion and, not understanding more than that but suspecting I was wrong, was hoping that someone would prove my wrongness. I mean, they're different places - they're under a unified banner right now, but they certainly haven't always been, and have different languages, histories, cultures...it's like saying "France and Germany - basically the same place right".
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 10:44
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I legit mean it; suspect someone who knows what the gently caress they're talking about is going to kick my rear end with some facts now. I had previously believed that Wales and Cornwall were celtic prior to William's invasion and, not understanding more than that but suspecting I was wrong, was hoping that someone would prove my wrongness. To put it in simple terms, they're two different ethnic groups that speak languages from the same family - both Celtic languages, though Cornish is not mutually intelligible with Welsh. The Welsh are also a nation, of course, in a way the Cornish aren't really - and Cornish is a much deader language; it's almost extinct. Speaking Cornish is actually much less of a deal than Cornish nationalism - but both are essentially very niche interests. They're two of the many ethnicities at large in the UK. CoolCab posted:I mean, they're different places - they're under a unified banner right now, but they certainly haven't always been, and have different languages, histories, cultures...it's like saying "France and Germany - basically the same place right". Same language family? What's the difference!?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
Well poo poo, I begin to see my mistake but please, seriously, continue to kick my rear end about it. I want to learn more. I'm coming from a place of almost perfect ignorance. e: in anything I post: I'm tryong not to sound authoritative, I just wanna know more and hope by posting what others know more than I that they'll correct me. Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Aug 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 10:47
|
|