|
Evidently there is no loving depth to how goddamn stupid slavery as a concept is.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The gently caress did they do when the rivers flooded if they couldn't dig earthworks? In 1860 it was really only New Orleans that had a well developed levee system. In fact most of the Mississippi valley was only lightly inhabited and large scale settlement only really started after the homestead act. As they had in most places throughout history most Americans just prayed there wouldn’t be a flood, and if there was they were ruined. It’s kind of weird to think about it but just about every major city on earth from Rome to Tokyo flooded regularly before the 19th century. People just accepted it or didn’t even understand the risk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
fantastic in plastic posted:There was a scheme to relocate Southerners to Brazil which suffered because many of them had no idea how to work, or had generations of strongly-held beliefs that physical labor was for colored folks and thus beneath whites. (The Wikipedia article says that they "became known for hard work" but that's only true of the ones who remained for a long period rather than most, who quickly gave up and went back to take their chances with Reconstruction.) quote:Some dishes of the American South were also adopted in general Brazilian culture, such as chess pie, vinegar pie, southern fried chicken,[2] and Texas caviar (known as salada de feijão-fradinho in Portuguese). quote:Texas caviar was created in the U.S. state of Texas around 1940 by Helen Corbitt, a native New Yorker who later became director of food service for the Zodiac Room at Neiman Marcus in Dallas, Texas.[3][4] Hmm!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The gently caress did they do when the rivers flooded if they couldn't dig earthworks? The Goddamn South today has laws against official planning considering sea level rises and poo poo like that, are oyu really surprised their great-great-grandfathers would ignore similar things?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
So I asked a question a while ago about mapping antiquity and I understand that it's not like proper borders were really a thing in the anarchic fringes of Rome in the 5th century, but I got another question about borders along the anarchic fringes of Rome in the 5th century. The location of the Ostrogoths here is a location I've seen reproduced a lot. The Ostrogoths are always shown as occupying Pannonia and some blurry edge of Dalmatia in the 470s. But! I just re-read Herwig Wolfram's History of the Goths, and Thomas Burns A History of the Ostrogoths. Those works are a little dated at this point, but for figuring out locations and dates I figure they're still fine. The specific thing I was looking for and what stuck out was that both of them said that Theoderic the Amal's Ostrogoths were operating out of Novae in the 470s, which is way east off along the Danube in modern Bulgaria. Wolfram and Burns also describe how the Amal Ostrogoths were given grants in inland Macedonia by Leo shortly before his death, and by the time Zeno was able reclaim Constantinople from Basiliscus a few years later the Ostrogoths had given up on the Macedonian land grants and had moved  Novae in yellow, rough location of Leo's grants to the Ostrogoths in magenta, and 'Here Be Ostrogoths' on maps of the 470s in red. What's bugging me is that all that action is not anywhere near where maps plop the Ostrogoths. Did the Ostrogoths have effective control all the way up to Aquincum and the fringes of Noricum anyways? If the Ostrogoths weren't up in Pannonia then, who was? Was it just wild anarchy? Ofaloaf fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Nov 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The Goddamn South today has laws against official planning considering sea level rises and poo poo like that, are oyu really surprised their great-great-grandfathers would ignore similar things? America’s most smartest boy everybody.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
Squalid posted:America’s most smartest boy everybody. He's right though: http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:They also had a bunch of ideas that are surprisingly close to modern sensibilities, probably owing to their general prosperity and food security. Like thinking that infanticide is horrible or that women are people. Too bad they were too isolationist to really influence other civilizations. I guess the Libyans , Canaanites and Nubians were thoroughly influenced at various times ...except for the 25th dynasty when the Nubians influenced them back, but then everybody got influenced by the Assyrians right afterwards, so maybe it doesn't count. There was also that psychopathic Pharaoh from the 18th dynasty. He just loved killing people and taking their stuff, so after doing that in and around his borders he decided to march off to conquer Syria, and ended up having to supply the army by looting everything on the way and turning the entire country against him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thutmose_I His scribes left accounts of how everyone got nervous when they encountered rain ,"A Nile in the sky" ,and rivers that flowed south instead of north, "Inverted Niles" , and forests ,"cedar that reaches to the sky". The whole thing was such a boondoggle that once they finished conquering Syria they just put up a stele on the banks of the Euphrates , then turned around and went back home. We have still have an account of it, written by Ahmose, a guy who survived it: quote:"The campaign was to slake his desire throughout the foreign lands" Thutmose ordered his soldiers to cut hands off bodies to bring back proof, Ahmose got to keep the hands as trophies, Thutmose took the horse and chariot ; now here's a bit from when they just pack up everything and leave quote:"He proceeds to return to Egypt, and he is like a stick which the worm has devoured, he is sick, prostration overtakes him. He is brought back upon an rear end, his clothes taken away by theft" Another weird thing about that family; Thutmose was married to his cousin Mutnofret, and his sister Ahmose (not the Ahmose from the story, it's just a really popular name.) Cousin/wife Mutnofret has a son, Thutmose II, and sister/wife Ahmose has a daughter, Hatshepsut. The problem is that his cousin/wife Mutnofret isn't fully royal, so their son Thutmose II has to marry his fully royal sister Hatshepsut to secure his claim, but then Thutmose II dies young and Hatshepsut just keeps ruling as a Pharoah. Read up on the 18th dynasty, they're all amazing. Especially once all the incest starts catching up to them with Ahmenotep IV. Also known as Akhenaten / The Heretic / That Criminal. Ghetto Prince fucked around with this message at 09:47 on Nov 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
[quote="“Stringent”" post="“478684653”"] He’s right though: http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782 [/quote] This has nothing to do with the long history of flood management in the American south.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Squalid posted:This has nothing to do with the long history of flood management in the American south. every one of these intelligent, resourceful people are southerners https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1987/02/23/atchafalaya
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Southerners are so racist and dumb haha, unlike other americans who are smart and not racist
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Being a southerner is now a frame of mind not where you are from.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
The divide nowadays is urban/rural, not north/south so much. But anyway that's modern.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Squalid posted:This has nothing to do with the long history of flood management in the American south. It's exactly the same sort of stupidity Confederate leadership had, lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Southerners are so racist and dumb haha, unlike other americans who are smart and not racist look it's okay to still be sore about carthage
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Some of it had to do with the soldiers not wanting to do physical labor (because that's what slaves are for), but part of it was the feeling that trenches and defensive positions were cowardly and unmanly. The soldiers were there to fight, not hide, and the general ahold be taking the fight to the enemy, not just sitting there and hiding in ditches while the enemy came at them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Apparently a 3,000 year old fortress has been found underneath Lake Van: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/underwater-fortress-urartu-lake-van-turkey-archaeology-video-spd/
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 22:38
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I wonder how the milhist thread would react to these sweeping statements
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Who would win, a roman cohort or a single tank destroyer with a supply of fuel and ammo?
Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Apparently a 3,000 year old fortress has been found underneath Lake Van: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/underwater-fortress-urartu-lake-van-turkey-archaeology-video-spd/ SEA PEOPLE!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Yeah when I read "underwater fortress" I can't help but think, like, Rl'yeh playing dominions or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Who would win, a roman cohort or a single tank destroyer with a supply of fuel and ammo? What the heck is a tank destroyer supposed to do with infantry? They usually don't even have turrets. Roman cohort wins easily.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Who would win, a roman cohort or a single tank destroyer with a supply of fuel and ammo? Being absolutely immune to the enemy's weapons means the tank destroyer probably wins, but the Romans can always dig a big tiger trap and bait the tank into it. That, or they realize they cannot possibly win in close combat and build earthworks around the whole thing and then flood them. Trust the Romans to use a navigable river as a weapon if it was possible. As always, it comes down to the people operating the technology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
Couldn’t the Romans just run around in circles until the tank destroyer runs out of gas
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Cohort could throw helmets full of dirt on to the engine compartment grills until it overheats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Tank destroyers often didn't even have roofs, and they don't carry a weapon capable of significantly damaging non-armored targets. Best case scenario they are carrying HE ammo (which would be completely atypical, because they never did) and could lob explosives at advancing enemy infantry formations and then run away. But it wouldn't be able to defend a supply depot. Any attached cavalry would easily hunt down a lone tank destroyer. Realistically tank destroyers lose regardless of what kind of infantry/cavalry they're facing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
The tank destroyer will destroy the cohort, and the Romans will just keep raising more cohorts to throw at the problem until the tank destroyer eventually breaks down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Kaal posted:What the heck is a tank destroyer supposed to do with infantry? They usually don't even have turrets. Roman cohort wins easily. just climb onto the thing and throw something on fire into any available hole
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
How does the tank destroyer get to the Roman army in the first place? There's something mighty strange about this I tell you what.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
I mean, realistically speaking they're gonna lose a lot of lives before they figure out the capabilities and weaknesses of this strange machine. Harder to say whether the number of lost lives adds up to a full cohort though
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
How much toilet paper did the tank crew bring?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
So how long after they steal it do the Romans figure out they have pretty much the ultimate siege machine? Assuming this time traveling tank destroyer somehow runs on roman wine instead of gas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
They have 30 shots with a gun designed to poke holes in eight inch steel plates. So never.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Tank destroyers often didn't even have roofs, and they don't carry a weapon capable of significantly damaging non-armored targets. Best case scenario they are carrying HE ammo (which would be completely atypical, because they never did) and could lob explosives at advancing enemy infantry formations and then run away. But it wouldn't be able to defend a supply depot. Any attached cavalry would easily hunt down a lone tank destroyer. Realistically tank destroyers lose regardless of what kind of infantry/cavalry they're facing. Tank destroyers usually have machine guns, and relatively often had HE shells, what with use of American ones as ersatz artillery in Italy and against fortifications where the added accuracy of a higher velocity shell was useful. Real weapons of war aren't rock paper scissors units.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
A caravel and a team of skilled builders to show them how to manufacture the various beams would have been neato on the other hand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:They have 30 shots with a gun designed to poke holes in eight inch steel plates. You misunderstand, I dont mean they shoot a target, that is too technical. Just ram the gates repeatedly, maybe paint a scary face on it or erect a giant statue of Mars or Augustus on it. This is very important to my rpg setting currently under development* *it will never actually exist
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Tank destroyers usually have machine guns, and relatively often had HE shells, what with use of American ones as ersatz artillery in Italy and against fortifications where the added accuracy of a higher velocity shell was useful. Actually it was only late in WWII that tank destroyers started mounting machine gun pintles and carrying HE ammo. It was part of the general trend toward converting the mobile gun design into more and more tank-like vehicles. The Americans were in the lead of this trend, and their tank destroyers were the most multiroled (with partial roofs, machine gun pintles, and decent armor). So sure, if we're talking about the most updated version of the tank destroyer then they'd be able to defend themselves just as well as anyone with a Browning Machine Gun, but the tank destroyer part would be totally superfluous to that effort. Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Apparently a 3,000 year old fortress has been found underneath Lake Van: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/underwater-fortress-urartu-lake-van-turkey-archaeology-video-spd/ Not impressed. Call me when they find a fort under Lake Hatchback.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:You misunderstand, I dont mean they shoot a target, that is too technical. Just ram the gates repeatedly, maybe paint a scary face on it or erect a giant statue of Mars or Augustus on it. Well it doesn't have a roof so your crew gets shot to death with arrows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
i brought this for you guys whenver you're feelin sad about egypt
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 04:44
|
|
