|
bewbies posted:notruescotsman.txt Not really, there is a distinction much as people don't often bother with it.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
bewbies posted:You're probably right about that. The entire history of communism is people furiously trying to explain how [nonfunctional socioeconomic system claiming to be communism] isn't the true strain. Communism hasn't been asserted itself, because almost everyone understands that communism is a distant but attainable goal after a period of transitional socialism. The argumentation is more criticising each others transitory states. There's an oral history of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and people within the USSR had the sentiment to become more, in their words, "humane socialism" versus the Soviet centralized state
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
If I was some schmuck living in let's say Early Modern times, would I be issued equipment or would I need to get my own? We're swords issued or were swords too expensive? How did this work later, let's say going into the 1700s
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Did you know that the Crusades weren't Christian? The Ten Commandments say "thou shalt not kill" so logically they couldn't be and by saying they were you just reveal your own ignorance. And don't get me started on describing the Kingdom of Hell Skeletons as an infernal bone empire when any skelecommisar would have told you that they were still only in the second stage of the great fleshrending and the Bonimicon clearly stated that the Skull Emperor will only arise upon full skeletonization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Did you know? There existed a bridge-laying version of the Sd.Kfz. 251 Now you do!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Did you know that the Crusades weren't Christian? The Ten Commandments say "thou shalt not kill" so logically they couldn't be and by saying they were you just reveal your own ignorance. If I was a crusader what kind of sword would I get, why, and how Also that's a false equivalency and extremely reductionist so please tell me what sword to buy
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Does anyone know if there are accounts from the Union soldiers who garrisoned the DC area during the ACW? Diaries or collections of letters or even contemporaneous memoirs that address the narrow topic? Even a chapter in a larger book might be cool. I realize this is super niche, but it ...uh... seemed like a good time to ask. My family's home is in a development on one of the campsites in Virginia and it would be cool to learn more. Other neighborhood kids were able to dig up buckles and other artifacts but I never had any luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Did you know that the Crusades weren't Christian? The Ten Commandments say "thou shalt not kill" so logically they couldn't be and by saying they were you just reveal your own ignorance. Dude, this is daft. Don't be daft. The crusades didn't have uprisings by christians claiming correctly that the crusades weren't actually christian, whereafter the critics were then murdered or jailed to a man by the people claiming to be christians - the USSR did, and so we have historical proof that people disagreed on what communism was. In fact, we did as early as the first international, and even before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Communism hasn't been asserted itself, because almost everyone understands that communism is a distant but attainable goal after a period of transitional socialism. Thus enabling future generations to claim in perpetuity that we've simply failed to reach the utopia, and pretend as though communism is still a viable sociopolitical system. Marx understood the internet better than any of us. Also, happy 153rd anniversary of SA's favorite military operation! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Thus enabling future generations to claim in perpetuity that we've simply failed to reach the utopia, and pretend as though communism is still a viable sociopolitical system. Marx understood the internet better than any of us. I hope you realize how colossally dense this take is, and how it accidentally also applies to the failure of liberal capitalism 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Emperor Norton's looking young there
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Thus enabling future generations to claim in perpetuity that we've simply failed to reach the utopia, and pretend as though communism is still a viable sociopolitical system. Marx understood the internet better than any of us. There are plenty of examples of communal economies in history and even today but I guess if you count " being crushed by military powers" toward lack of viability...
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Tias posted:Dude, this is daft. Don't be daft. Yes, people disagreed! Including the people who supported the Soviet Union and described what they were doing as correct so why do their opinions no longer count? Like there's no need to be prescriptivist about Communism any more than there is about Christianity. Lots of people murdered each other over who was and wasn't a "real" Christian and I don't think it's necessary to the historian to claim a side in that struggle. e: to clarify, what I'm getting at is that limiting "Communism" to only describe proper Marxist ideology as laid out in Das Kapital is like limiting "Christianity" to only Biblical literalism. Which in internal discussions within the movement may be very important but from an outside perspective may not be and may even be harmful to a broader understanding phenomena that are still very much related to each other. Maoism is like Mormonism or something I dunno. P-Mack fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I can talk about swords more What kind of sword would the Crusader commander of a tank destroyer carry? His fighting space is normally quite small but he'll need a lot of reach to be able to hit tank commanders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:And don't get me started on describing the Kingdom of Hell Skeletons as an infernal bone empire when any skelecommisar would have told you that they were still only in the second stage of the great fleshrending and the Bonimicon clearly stated that the Skull Emperor will only arise upon full skeletonization. I'd play this D&D campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:What kind of sword would the Crusader commander of a tank destroyer carry? His fighting space is normally quite small but he'll need a lot of reach to be able to hit tank commanders. Sulu's telescoping sword from the 2009 Star Trek movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Does historical academics try to draw conclusions or deduce underlying rules from events, or is there a (non-hack) academic field for that? Basic research vs targeted research, I guess? Like, Hey Guns is studying muster rolls, which is cool as hell, it shows what happened and who it happened to, but is it adding up to a theory of something? I guess the thing that comes up for me is wondering how much of the Soviet Union's collapse was having their particular system and how much was losing 15% of their population, and if it's possible to draw a conclusion without redoing the 20th Century without WWII.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Doenitz got what, 10 years? For using slave labor, which was a part of the holocaust Doenitz is one of the few times the Soviets chose to assert themselves and in his case they were successful in avoiding an acquittal. The Soviets throughout the process were against any acquittals and in the Admiral's case, they convinced the Americans. For the most part, the Soviets did not interfere with the trial procedure. Doenitz probably had the best defense lawyer there, compare his fate to that of Raeder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
I'm seriously asking like what were the designations for swords in early modern/medieval? Like would I go to the sword store and say "1 arming sword please" or would I like say "I want a year 1258 backbladed sword 30'' long"
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Yes, people disagreed! Including the people who supported the Soviet Union and described what they were doing as correct so why do their opinions no longer count? It wouldn't be an argument if it stood alone, but political historians have done a pretty good job discussing what communism is, and where it came from. You can't call a state capitalist system communist, because it isn't. Words mean things, and people don't get to change that definition in order to claim kinship with something they have little in common with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Yes, people disagreed! Including the people who supported the Soviet Union and described what they were doing as correct so why do their opinions no longer count? There's this country called the Soviet Union that doesn't actually have any Soviets, and isn't a Union, but we will take them at face value to criticize political systems everywhere
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Please do. I would like to ask more about infantry sabers in Napoleons time For Napoleon's time most infantry officers carried a Spadroon, which was an attempt to militarize the smallsword. What they were was a cut and thrust blade on a smallsword style hilt, so it looks about the same while being worn, but has a blade more able to parry a bayonet thrust for example. However a lot of these swords were quite springy, and while that is good to a point, since it help keep a sword from breaking, too much bend means the sword is bad at thrusting since energy is wasted bending the blade instead of going into the target. This problem exists for other swords too. In the Crimean war for example, British cavalry troopers sometimes had problems stabbing their Russian counterparts through their heavy greatcoats. Spadroons were also pretty light swords, so when you slashed with them, there was not a lot of oomph to the hit. While you do not need a giant heavy sword to cut effectively, you do need some mass there to help generate force at the site of impact. Think hitting with the business end of a hammer compared to the handle. Spadroons tried to be something akin to a saber or broadsword, and were often too bendy to thrust well, and too insubstantial to cut well. There were good ones made with stiffer, more robust blades but in general they were not that great. The French ones in general were better than British ones in terms of being effective fighting swords. As a result, what you see happen during the Napoleonic Wars is some infantry officers either getting significantly more robust blades put on the hilts, and some carrying nonregulation swords like cavalry sabers and "hangers" (pretty much a cutlass.) For example 1796 British light cavalry swords got used by whole bunches of infantry in various roles. However for most of the time, spadroons were the infantry officer's sword. A few decades into the 1800s and nearly everyone has moved to sabers for their infantry officers instead of spadroons and spadroon type blades
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:I'm seriously asking like what were the designations for swords in early modern/medieval? I think you'd describe it. Standardization doesn't really fit with the pre-industrial world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:What kind of sword would the Crusader commander of a tank destroyer carry? His fighting space is normally quite small but he'll need a lot of reach to be able to hit tank commanders. He would carry a pike with an telescoping shaft and use it to fight wojtek
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
"Good Blacksmith, I would like to have one of your finest edged whacky-sticks!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:For Napoleon's time most infantry officers carried a Spadroon, which was an attempt to militarize the smallsword. What they were was a cut and thrust blade on a smallsword style hilt, so it looks about the same while being worn, but has a blade more able to parry a bayonet thrust for example. However a lot of these swords were quite springy, and while that is good to a point, since it help keep a sword from breaking, too much bend means the sword is bad at thrusting since energy is wasted bending the blade instead of going into the target. This problem exists for other swords too. In the Crimean war for example, British cavalry troopers sometimes had problems stabbing their Russian counterparts through their heavy greatcoats. Were infantry officers issued these swords, or just bought/were gifted/acquired these swords on their own preferences? Were there regulations on what swords one was allowed to carry, similar to uniform regulations, since you say nonregulation swords? Were Grenadiers/Voltigeurs etc.. also carrying these Spadroons or Light Cavalry Swords or did they have their own preferences/issuance? Did infantry ever use the 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sabre? Or was such a sword poor for foot combat?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Tias posted:Dude, this is daft. Don't be daft. The Fraticelli and Waldensian uprisings in my Crusader Kings playthrough say different (before I crushed them mercilessly)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:I'm seriously asking like what were the designations for swords in early modern/medieval? In general the popular type of sword was just called a sword, so you would describe what you wanted. You would go to the local blacksmith, and say you wanted a one handed sword with a sharp point for piercing mail, or a broad blade with a fuller to keep it light. They also might have swords ready to buy of common types, and you just point at one of those and say what they want different. "I want one of those, but with a nicer hilt and a longer blade, say, 2 more inches, and can you etch Kevin Rules on the blade?" It's possible they had words to describe the qualities we do not know of, but in inventories and such normally its just "swords" or "big swords" or "two handed swords" because they are writing expecting the reader to know the context of the period.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Does anyone know if there are accounts from the Union soldiers who garrisoned the DC area during the ACW? Diaries or collections of letters or even contemporaneous memoirs that address the narrow topic? Even a chapter in a larger book might be cool. I believe Oliver Wendell Holmes, future Supreme Court Justice, was garrisoned at DC after he was wounded at Gettysburg, you could check out his stuff. He claimed to have told Lincoln himself to "get his head down, you idiot' while watching Early's raid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:What kind of sword would the Crusader commander of a tank destroyer carry? His fighting space is normally quite small but he'll need a lot of reach to be able to hit tank commanders. A lance strapped to the side of the tank when not in use. WoodrowSkillson posted:In general the popular type of sword was just called a sword, so you would describe what you wanted. You would go to the local blacksmith, and say you wanted a one handed sword with a sharp point for piercing mail, or a broad blade with a fuller to keep it light. They also might have swords ready to buy of common types, and you just point at one of those and say what they want different. "I want one of those, but with a nicer hilt and a longer blade, say, 2 more inches, and can you etch Kevin Rules on the blade?" Yeah the thing about all the different sword names is that a lot of them are made up by historians after the fact who need names for all the different swords in their historical sword piles. Whereas your contemporary sword man at the time has the sword of his time period, which is called a sword. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Were infantry officers issued these swords, or just bought/were gifted/acquired these swords on their own preferences? Were there regulations on what swords one was allowed to carry, similar to uniform regulations, since you say nonregulation swords? Were Grenadiers/Voltigeurs etc.. also carrying these Spadroons or Light Cavalry Swords or did they have their own preferences/issuance? Did infantry ever use the 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sabre? Or was such a sword poor for foot combat? Officers bought their gear, based on regulations the armed forces dictated to try and ensure a minimum level of quality and such. Officers bought both their pistol and sword until the 1900s in some militaries. As a result, more well off officers often did customize their gear in accordance with their stature, so you see etched blades, fancier hilts, guns with engraved barrels, etc. You can find all kinds of variation as a result, all the way to blades that vary significantly from the standard pattern when you have a particularly skilled swordsman buying them. For example, most of the hilts until the later 1800s were brass, but you can find steel ones that are then gilded to make them look brass, because that dude wanted a sturdier hilt. For regular soldiers, they were issued whatever gear their unit was assigned. The cavalry swords are the working example here. All the troopers got issued the same sword. Often artillerymen for example were issued hangers, essentially a cutlass. There was still some degree of personal gear allowed, so a normal soldier with a more well off family might get gifted a saber by his dad before serving, or a decent pistol to go along with his musket and bayonet. In general, the big cavalry swords are a bit unwieldy for footsoldiers, but they certainly could work, and I'm sure someone used them. The general trend is cavalry swords are a bit longer to help hit dudes on foot, and because extended engagements were extremely rare since you normally either sliced at the dude or stabbed at him and rode off, regardless of if you hit him. So in general cavalry swords are bit heavier than you want when you need to defend yourself against a dude with a bayonet, or multiple guys. Normally the infantry sabers are a few inches shorter and a bit lighter as a result. So you see a lot of 1796 light cavalry sword getting re purposed, but not as many of the heavy cavalry swords since those are on the far edge of a good weight for a sword. In general, throughout history, one handed swords are usually between 1 and 3lbs, with 1.5-2 being the most common since that is just about the sweet spot for a cut and thrust sword to do both jobs without being tiring to use. The heavy cavalry sword is on the far edge of that, something like 2.5 or nearly 3 lbs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Tias posted:I hope you realize how colossally dense this take is, and how it accidentally also applies to the failure of liberal capitalism Not really, since there's never been centralized "liberal capitalist" philosophers to define an in-depth ideology as to what "true capitalism" is, and all the definitions weren't just reverse-engineered to describe what people were already doing to stand in contrast to some mythical reverse-state. If you're arguing that none of the influential states or groups throughout history that have carried the communist label have been communist and that everything under the sun is another iteration of capitalism (whatever that means) then at some point your own tiny definition of the word is so useless that you're just fighting a losing battle to try to stop the majority of people from using the word in the way that they already are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend any books about the kingdom of hell skeletons
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Does anyone know if there are accounts from the Union soldiers who garrisoned the DC area during the ACW? Diaries or collections of letters or even contemporaneous memoirs that address the narrow topic? Even a chapter in a larger book might be cool. Since you're looking for local stuff, you might have some luck reaching out to local historical societies/museums. Off the top of my head there's Blenheim in Fairfax county which is sort of interesting on it's own, but I'd imagine the people who run it might have some recommendations for what you're asking about. quote:Historic Blenheim is a central-hall plan brick farmhouse built by Albert Willcoxon (c. 1859) just prior to the Civil War (1861-65). It is nationally significant for the voluminous quantity and quality of examples of Civil War inscriptions. More than 122 signatures, pictographs, games, and thoughts were left on the house walls by Union soldiers during their occupation of the Fairfax Court House area in 1862-63. This "diary on walls" provides insight into typical soldier life and extends to the effect of this war on local residents--such as the Willcoxon family--and free and enslaved people of African descent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Can anyone recommend any books about the kingdom of hell skeletons I have this great book about the HRE
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Not really, since there's never been centralized "liberal capitalist" philosophers to define an in-depth ideology as to what "true capitalism" is, and all the definitions weren't just reverse-engineered to describe what people were already doing to stand in contrast to some mythical reverse-state. Pro-tip: If actual communists disavow a regime that called itself communist, then it probably was not communist. You're acting like liberal historians get to decide that everything that calls itself socialist is actually socialists( which is why we get so deligthfully retarded arguments as nazism = socialism nowadays). If they return property to democratic control of the working class = communism. If they install a corrupt kleptocrat system that benefits dignitaries in the state = state capitalist. It's not rocket science, but keep regurgitating hot Fukuyama takes if you want to. I'm done with this nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
I was asked this question and I didn't really have a good answer, and since this thread loves counterfactuals so much: The Spanish Flu didn't really hit the Western Front until the thing had already been decided, more or less. So, a lot of guys died, and some practices there exacerbated the spread of the disease, but other than that it wasn't really much more than a footnote to the WWI story. What if it'd hit in 1916 instead? Assuming a mortality rate of 10-20%, focused very heavily on young people, with the millions of joes all living in slop on two fronts, how bad could it have gotten? Is there any historical precedent for an army losing one in five to disease over the course of a few months, and if so, did they continue doing whatever it was they were doing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
I get why there's reluctance to have those arguments in here but speaking from my layman/idiot/peanut gallery perspective I enjoyed the sorta glimpses and sketches of controversies on both Nuremberg trials and the USSR / communism and found them informative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Is there any historical precedent for an army losing one in five to disease over the course of a few months, and if so, did they continue doing whatever it was they were doing? Plenty if you want to look at the early modern period. Especially in the tropics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:Plenty if you want to look at the early modern period. Especially in the tropics. Yeah appointing someone to be the Governor of New Spain was basically a death sentence for them, and they new it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:06
|
|