Military History Mk. III: One that I know of is an archaic word for dick, another is

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Military History Mk. III: One that I know of is an archaic word for dick, another is

«‹›1216 »

SeanBeansShako: Nov 20, 2009; Now the Drums beat up again,
For all true Soldier Gentlemen.

HEY GUNS posted:

not even unrealistic

I like the amount of women who served and fought in the Prussian uniform who were respected for it. It is a great fact to wind up Butternuts.

Squalid posted:

The kids as described in this article are pathetically normal. Their decision to join IS is highly compulsive, and reminds me very much of the opening scene in All Quiet on the Western Front

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxitujxRS-s

The worst part of the seventies remake was this fucker was never forced into the reserve and sent off to die at the end.

SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Oct 30, 2017

# ? Oct 30, 2017 16:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 21:31

Plutonis: Mar 25, 2011

HEY GUNS posted:

not even unrealistic

The Life Hussar hat is so loving cool. And for all of their failings the Austro-Hungarian cavalry uniforms are really spiffy.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 16:56

SeanBeansShako: Nov 20, 2009; Now the Drums beat up again,
For all true Soldier Gentlemen.

Seriously now, John Mollo is dead and I feel a little bit of me is gone too.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 16:58

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

what's a butternut

# ? Oct 30, 2017 17:04

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Plutonis posted:

The Life Hussar hat is so loving cool. And for all of their failings the Austro-Hungarian cavalry uniforms are really spiffy.

i talk my period up a lot but honestly the 19th century is the real golden age of uniforms

# ? Oct 30, 2017 17:08

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

HEY GUNS posted:

i talk my period up a lot but honestly the 19th century is the real golden age of uniforms

Uniforms? As in a single outfit worn by many people to show membership in a common organization? Yeah.

The thing is that your dudes are utterly glorious because not only were the loving fabulous dressers, but the very notion of the uniform doesn't really exist outside of a small handful of household liveries. Prussian hussars might look dapper as gently caress in their double-brested jackets, but I still think that doesn't hold a candle to a mob of Saxons letting their freak flags fly with a career's worth of plundered slashed silk.

edit: plus showing off all those sexy, sexy calves.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 17:11

SeanBeansShako: Nov 20, 2009; Now the Drums beat up again,
For all true Soldier Gentlemen.

You can still show off your calves and wear crazy uniforms until the late 18th century.

HEY GUNS posted:

what's a butternut

My own nickname for the dudes into 19th century stuff but are cringey closet nazis who don't give an actual poo poo about the history behind it. I call them Butternuts because the ones I've encountered always seem to have a very creepy hero worship level for the Confederates of the US Civil War.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 17:12

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

SeanBeansShako posted:

My own nickname for the dudes into 19th century stuff but are cringey closet nazis who don't give an actual poo poo about the history behind it. I call them Butternuts because the ones I've encountered always seem to have a very creepy hero worship level for the Confederates of the US Civil War.

in my experience those people are way to into the second reich as a cover for the third, they're wilhelmaboos

# ? Oct 30, 2017 17:14

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Cyrano4747 posted:

Uniforms? As in a single outfit worn by many people to show membership in a common organization? Yeah.

The thing is that your dudes are utterly glorious because not only were the loving fabulous dressers, but the very notion of the uniform doesn't really exist outside of a small handful of household liveries. Prussian hussars might look dapper as gently caress in their double-brested jackets, but I still think that doesn't hold a candle to a mob of Saxons letting their freak flags fly with a career's worth of plundered slashed silk.

edit: plus showing off all those sexy, sexy calves.

get this though

instead of broad hats you have tall hats, in the 19th c

so much more room for decorations

# ? Oct 30, 2017 17:15

Comrade Gorbash: Jul 12, 2011; My paper soldiers form a wall, five paces thick and twice as tall.

Cyrano4747 posted:

Uniforms? As in a single outfit worn by many people to show membership in a common organization? Yeah.

The thing is that your dudes are utterly glorious because not only were the loving fabulous dressers, but the very notion of the uniform doesn't really exist outside of a small handful of household liveries. Prussian hussars might look dapper as gently caress in their double-brested jackets, but I still think that doesn't hold a candle to a mob of Saxons letting their freak flags fly with a career's worth of plundered slashed silk.

edit: plus showing off all those sexy, sexy calves.

A quantity vs quality question I think. Those Saxons top even the best of the 19th century, but many of their contemporaries on the field were in pretty dull stuff. Against that there were a lot more flashy uniforms per capita in the 19th.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 17:17

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

i fuccen love that the saxons are kind of bad at war in the 17th c

this has kindled in me a desire to study armies that are kind of not great

# ? Oct 30, 2017 17:20

Comrade Gorbash: Jul 12, 2011; My paper soldiers form a wall, five paces thick and twice as tall.

HEY GUNS posted:

i fuccen love that the saxons are kind of bad at war in the 17th c

this has kindled in me a desire to study armies that are kind of not great

The armies of the Roman Republic are great for this. Particularly the period where they were at loggerheads with Carthage and the Greek colonies on Sicily. They lose battles a lot more often than they win them, but end up winning the wars because they just raise another legion and try again.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 17:27

SlothfulCobra: Mar 27, 2011

After most armies started spending most of their time in camo and countries no longer were in a contest to out-dazzle their rivals, it was the death of men's fashion.

All that's left are these flaccid, weak neckties that probably will be hidden under a suit jacket anyways.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 17:31

SeanBeansShako: Nov 20, 2009; Now the Drums beat up again,
For all true Soldier Gentlemen.

I always feel sort of sad for the French soldiers of Waterloo compared to their glory days because those guys just wore what they could get.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 17:32

MuffiTuffiWuffi: Jul 25, 2013

Comrade Gorbash posted:

Mostly keep in mind that it's through-narrative is as a biography of John Paul Vann, so it has a very particular perspective. My impression of it was that it was reliable and clear-sighted in the content it covered, but the basic framing meant it was far from comprehensive as a history.

The big argument for it is that it covers the war and American involvement in it in microcosm, and in some ways that are more illuminating than a more exhaustive history would. It's worth reading but it's a narrow slice, and you'll need to look elsewhere to really flesh out the context.

Thanks! I don't have a ton of context for Vietnam except as a political football for American politicians so that might be next on the list then. I expect that this that this book will make me very angry though. Might dampen the enthusiasm for knowing the whole context.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 17:41

WoodrowSkillson: Feb 24, 2005; *Gestures at 60 years of Lions history*

Comrade Gorbash posted:

The armies of the Roman Republic are great for this. Particularly the period where they were at loggerheads with Carthage and the Greek colonies on Sicily. They lose battles a lot more often than they win them, but end up winning the wars because they just raise another legion and try again.

Do you mean the first punic war? It is a legendary example of both sides fielding incompetent leader after incompetent leader, for an entire decade.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 17:57

feedmegin: Jul 30, 2008

HEY GUNS posted:

i fuccen love that the saxons are kind of bad at war in the 17th c

this has kindled in me a desire to study armies that are kind of not great

We have such sights to show you in 17th century England

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:04

Elyv: Jun 14, 2013

WoodrowSkillson posted:

Do you mean the first punic war? It is a legendary example of both sides fielding incompetent leader after incompetent leader, for an entire decade.

The First Punic War was over 20 years long and the only written sources that survive about it are secondhand sources written like a century after the fact

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:07

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

HEY GUNS posted:

i fuccen love that the saxons are kind of bad at war in the 17th c

this has kindled in me a desire to study armies that are kind of not great

Proto-Prussia is even funnier, because it showed a lot of the bad strategic decision-making skills which ended killing Prussia/Germany in the early 20th century later: Brandenburg tried to stay neutral during the 30YW and had to suffer not only both parties of the war marching up and down through it, it suffered additional havoc by Brandenburg's forces trying to fight a guerilla war against everyone marching through it. Which hosed the land up even more.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:12

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Libluini posted:

Proto-Prussia is even funnier, because it showed a lot of the bad strategic decision-making skills which ended killing Prussia/Germany in the early 20th century later: Brandenburg tried to stay neutral during the 30YW and had to suffer not only both parties of the war marching up and down through it, it suffered additional havoc by Brandenburg's forces trying to fight a guerilla war against everyone marching through it. Which hosed the land up even more.

oh, early seventeenth century brandenburg owned. OWNED.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:17

Tevery Best: Oct 11, 2013; Hewlo Furriend

SlothfulCobra posted:

After most armies started spending most of their time in camo and countries no longer were in a contest to out-dazzle their rivals, it was the death of men's fashion.

All that's left are these flaccid, weak neckties that probably will be hidden under a suit jacket anyways.

Obviously we must head full steam towards the Araki Universe.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:21

Comrade Gorbash: Jul 12, 2011; My paper soldiers form a wall, five paces thick and twice as tall.

WoodrowSkillson posted:

Do you mean the first punic war? It is a legendary example of both sides fielding incompetent leader after incompetent leader, for an entire decade.

The 3rd Century in general, really. Rome won those wars but they're generally not noted for inspiring generalship or combative prowess, not did they have decisive outcomes.

It's less that Rome was bad at war and more that they were just decent at it, punctuated by occasional bouts of sheer idiocy. What makes it really interesting is that ancient states with that profile usually get themselves conquered or at least have their political administration overthrown, but the Roman Republic always managed to raise one more army to stave off disaster, and then grind their way to at least a negotiated peace.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:24

Davin Valkri: Apr 8, 2011; Maybe you're weighing the moral pros and cons but let me assure you that OH MY GOD
SHOOT ME IN THE GODDAMNED FACE
WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!

HEY GUNS posted:

i fuccen love that the saxons are kind of bad at war in the 17th c

this has kindled in me a desire to study armies that are kind of not great

Doesn't that describe all armies in some form or another?

Alternative hot take: Confederate Army and Wehrmacht are already well studied, heyo!

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:27

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

HEY GUNS posted:

oh, early seventeenth century brandenburg owned. OWNED.

The Dukedom of Brandenburg showed where the later Prussian idea of "Let's fight everyone! Multiple times!!!" came from. Too bad this strategy stopped working at some point :v:

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:28

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

HEY GUNS posted:

i fuccen love that the saxons are kind of bad at war in the 17th c

this has kindled in me a desire to study armies that are kind of not great

so you like great uniforms and lovely armies

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:28

Cythereal: Nov 8, 2009; I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.

SlothfulCobra posted:

After most armies started spending most of their time in camo and countries no longer were in a contest to out-dazzle their rivals, it was the death of men's fashion.

All that's left are these flaccid, weak neckties that probably will be hidden under a suit jacket anyways.

I remember a children's book about time travelers, and the veteran time traveler's advice to the newbie about landing in an unfamiliar dimension and time that seems to be a war zone is, look at the outfits the soldiers are wearing. Bright and colorful uniforms mean you're good to go. Dirt colored uniforms mean pucker up this is gonna be lovely until you can get out of here.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:39

ulmont: Sep 15, 2010; IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE

PittTheElder posted:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phạm_Ng&%237885;c_Th&%237843;o

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph%E1%BA%A1m_Ng%E1%BB%8Dc_Th%E1%BA%A3o

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:43

Comrade Gorbash: Jul 12, 2011; My paper soldiers form a wall, five paces thick and twice as tall.

Cythereal posted:

I remember a children's book about time travelers, and the veteran time traveler's advice to the newbie about landing in an unfamiliar dimension and time that seems to be a war zone is, look at the outfits the soldiers are wearing. Bright and colorful uniforms mean you're good to go. Dirt colored uniforms mean pucker up this is gonna be lovely until you can get out of here.

Not terribly good advice, it has to be said.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:47

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Comrade Gorbash posted:

The 3rd Century in general, really. Rome won those wars but they're generally not noted for inspiring generalship or combative prowess, not did they have decisive outcomes.

It's less that Rome was bad at war and more that they were just decent at it, punctuated by occasional bouts of sheer idiocy. What makes it really interesting is that ancient states with that profile usually get themselves conquered or at least have their political administration overthrown, but the Roman Republic always managed to raise one more army to stave off disaster, and then grind their way to at least a negotiated peace.

isn't that back when they elected their war dudes? renaissance florence tried that and renaissance florence BLEW at combat

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:54

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Cythereal posted:

I remember a children's book about time travelers, and the veteran time traveler's advice to the newbie about landing in an unfamiliar dimension and time that seems to be a war zone is, look at the outfits the soldiers are wearing. Bright and colorful uniforms mean you're good to go. Dirt colored uniforms mean pucker up this is gonna be lovely until you can get out of here.

this does not explain the 30yw

*starves*

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:55

sullat: Jan 9, 2012

HEY GUNS posted:

isn't that back when they elected their war dudes? renaissance florence tried that and renaissance florence BLEW at combat

Not only did they elect their dudes but their dudes political rivalries would prevent them from working well with each other. Both Cannae, and uh, that other big defeat against the Gauls, were caused by political generals refusing to co-operate with each other. Athens also did this too, sometimes it worked (Marathon, Salamis).

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:56

WoodrowSkillson: Feb 24, 2005; *Gestures at 60 years of Lions history*

Comrade Gorbash posted:

The 3rd Century in general, really. Rome won those wars but they're generally not noted for inspiring generalship or combative prowess, not did they have decisive outcomes.

It's less that Rome was bad at war and more that they were just decent at it, punctuated by occasional bouts of sheer idiocy. What makes it really interesting is that ancient states with that profile usually get themselves conquered or at least have their political administration overthrown, but the Roman Republic always managed to raise one more army to stave off disaster, and then grind their way to at least a negotiated peace.

Wait, which wars did not have decisive outcomes? The third century BC is when Rome became a world power. In the Third Samnite War Rome conquers most of Italy, ends the Etruscan confederation, and subdues the Samnites until the Social War. After that they conquer Magna Grecia and effectively defeat Pyrrus, and they are not clowned on by him in regards to tactics or anything. The First Punic war sees Rome gain Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinina. The Second Punic War sees Rome invade Carthage itself, and force concessions which see Rome now control the ~half of the Iberian peninsula, and completely kicks Carthage out of everywhere but North Africa.

The First Punic war is a bunch of idiots doing stupid rear end poo poo like trying to siege a coastal city without a blockade, but it is on a neutral field mostly, with both sides one-upping each other in regards to stupidity. That culminates in the Battle of Tunis wherein a Roman general gets utterly outmaneuvered by Xanthippus, a mercenary Greek general, who is then in turn run out of Carthage fearing for his life by jealous Cathaginian nobles.

The only periods wherein the Romans were winning via attrition was during Hannibal's invasion in the Second Punic War, and when they defeated the Germanic invasion of the Cimbri and Teutones. In both cases they absorbed losses that indeed would have broken most states, and suffered from poor leadership in the initial periods until they got their poo poo together.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 18:58

Comrade Gorbash: Jul 12, 2011; My paper soldiers form a wall, five paces thick and twice as tall.

HEY GUNS posted:

isn't that back when they elected their war dudes? renaissance florence tried that and renaissance florence BLEW at combat

It is. On the other hand, a bunch of Greek poleis did too and did well by it. Electing generals has decidedly mixed results, but I wouldn't say its definitely worse than the (supposedly) merit based approach. Both are better than hereditary leadership at least.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 19:00

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

sullat posted:

Not only did they elect their dudes but their dudes political rivalries would prevent them from working well with each other.

bewbies_on_the_acw_union_army.txt

# ? Oct 30, 2017 19:03

WoodrowSkillson: Feb 24, 2005; *Gestures at 60 years of Lions history*

HEY GUNS posted:

isn't that back when they elected their war dudes? renaissance florence tried that and renaissance florence BLEW at combat

Yeah, the Consuls were both heads of state and the 2 primary generals. Though effectively a whole bunch were career military men who then spend X amount of time doing politics in between campaigns. The Romans essentially linked their military and their political offices, and the only way to have legitimacy in politics was have a successful military career. Even Cicero did his time in the legions because he has to have that resume to have credibility in the Senate.

It did lead to an immense amount of shenanigans, as dudes towards the end of their terms would do all kinds of stupid poo poo to avoid the new guy getting credit for what they did, which saw many Roman armies blunder into battles they should not have because the Consul was more worried about his own career than being smart.

They also had other generals that held other offices as well. Governors of provinces, Proconsuls (former Consuls given a 5 year period of governing power over a region), and various other offices were also the military commander in a region, functioning as the General of that army. This happens later in the Republic as earlier on, you only ever really needed 2 armies at once, and when really pressed they would get former Consuls or whatever to help out.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 19:09

Pornographic Memory: Dec 17, 2008

ulmont posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph%E1%BA%A1m_Ng%E1%BB%8Dc_Th%E1%BA%A3o

holy poo poo this dude's incredible :eyepop:

i can't even imagine the kind of insane self control and resolution it would take to be so deeply embedded in the power structure of a regime you're doing your best to sabotage at every turn, in just such a way as to make it look like you're actually working for its benefit, without giving yourself away or eventually becoming genuinely invested in it for as long as he lasted

# ? Oct 30, 2017 19:34

Plutonis: Mar 25, 2011

Comrade Gorbash posted:

It is. On the other hand, a bunch of Greek poleis did too and did well by it. Electing generals has decidedly mixed results, but I wouldn't say its definitely worse than the (supposedly) merit based approach. Both are better than hereditary leadership at least.

Athens' close watch on their Strategoi had its downsides though. Such as for example executing THREE FOURTHS of the generals that brought the biggest naval victory against Sparta during the Pelloponese war immediately after the battle because of petty reasons.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 19:42

Chillbro Baggins: Oct 8, 2004; Bad Angus! Bad!

Comrade Gorbash posted:

Not terribly good advice, it has to be said.

HEY GUNS posted:

this does not explain the 30yw

*starves*

War never changes, and all.

If everybody else is wearing drab earth tones and the French are still bright and colorful, you're turbofucked, though.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 19:51

Comrade Gorbash: Jul 12, 2011; My paper soldiers form a wall, five paces thick and twice as tall.

Delivery McGee posted:

If everybody else is wearing drab earth tones and the French are still bright and colorful, you're turbofucked, though.

Now that is on point.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 19:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 21:31

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

Plutonis posted:

Athens' close watch on their Strategoi had its downsides though. Such as for example executing THREE FOURTHS of the generals that brought the biggest naval victory against Sparta during the Pelloponese war immediately after the battle because of petty reasons.

Stuff like this makes me wonder how Athens held out so long against Sparta. It does explain the eventual defeat and occupation of Athens by Sparta, though.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 20:01

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Military History Mk. III: One that I know of is an archaic word for dick, another is

«‹›1216 »