|
khwarezm posted:"Honorary Whites." its because britain spent 300 years controlling the narrative
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Holy poo poo, Italian alpini still wear little feathers on their helmets: The Bersaglieri laugh at your puny feathers:  Also worth noting, one of the Bersaglieri shticks is that they run everywhere, all the time. Even the band. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0kBETseDmQ Imagine running while playing the tuba for an entire parade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
They should play their wind instruments on their old school bikes. That'd be impressive.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Sturer Emil I'm interested in Soviet tank winter camo. I assume it's not just 'paint the things white'
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I remember reading some accounts of British officers during things like the conquest of Bengal and a thing that really caught me off guard was that they said that Indian warriors tended not to be very good at responding to thrusting attacks from British swords which was a big advantage for them, as if thrusting wasn't as common a part of sword fighting in India as it was in the west. It got me thinking, an awful lot of western swords seem to be well built for thrusting, and European culture tends to exaggerate and orientalise other cultures arms by making everything really curvy (think generic depictions of Arab or Indian warriors using nothing but Scimitars and Talwars, or the Katana being associated with pretty much all of East Asia somehow). Meanwhile Fencing is probably the most robust western martial art active these days. Again I don't really know anything about sword history or techniques so tell me if I have everything entirely wrong, and I know there's plenty of things like Falchions and such in European history and that most swords, regardless of where they originate, can do many things at once, but is there anything to the idea that thrusting techniques and weapons were given unusual emphasis in European society over the past millennia or so? As not to derail the current, ongoing discussion (which is awesome by the way!) I'll try to keep my answer to this on the brief side as I am not an expert on this, and have only had chances to study historical martial arts/culture and weapons in relation to my main research focuses in school or as a "HEMA" enthusiast with far too little time or funding for extensive research. Now, in regards to the main point, there were indeed certain eras and contexts in which the thrust was highly preferred to the cut in Europe. In fact, in certain eras, masters would commonly advocate the thrust over the cut as far deadlier/more effective (see, for example, the treatises of the Italian masters of the 17th century. Many of these are available either as newly edited/translated editions or as free translations online). Historically, there was even intermittent debate about this subject well into the Victorian era. With all that said, though, swords capable of cutting, or even optimized for cutting, continued to be used and taught during the 17th century - the "zenith" of the rapier so to speak - and beyond, going well into the Victorian era, a fact which may surprise some. They were also used in a variety of contexts during this period as well, though weapons like hangers, broadswords and sabres were increasingly restricted to military/police or sporting spheres. As for why the thrust often overshadows the cut in popular perception, I think there are a lot of reasons, including Victorian historical memory and favoritism, pop culture and finally the dominance of sport fencing over martial fencing in the west (which, by the end of World War 1, was basically gone entirely). As for why weapons of certain periods gravitated towards one shape or another, that's all contextual, since armor, opponents and tactics had major impacts on weapons and their use. A great example for this is comparing an 8th century sword, with it's broader, flatter cut-oriented blade, one intended for use against minimal armor, to a sword from the 15th century sword with a finely tapered point, intended for use against not only more armor, but more protective armors that needed to be circumvented. There is a surprising amount of solid material about historical martial arts now, as well as related subjects as popular violence or pre/early modern cultures of honor, thanks to scholars, more research-minded and serious enthusiasts, and the easier availability of primary sources. It also helps that institutions like the Wallace Collection more readily share their sources (like Giganti's second treatise). Also, if you don't mind me asking, do you remember where you read those accounts? They sound familiar. Hopefully this helps a bit and isn't too rambly. And, once again, this is a cool thread!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:45
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:"Honorary Whites." The problem with Southeast Asian history is that there isn't very much of it. To put that in less obnoxious terms, few sources have survived to present. The reasons for this are various but in part climatic -- paper documents don't last long in the tropics. Our ignorance on this matter isn't solely due to the eurocentrism of our education, for many places and eras there just isn't much written information available period. For example the only sources on life in the Khmer Empire, which still existed in the 15th century, are by Chinese visitors. It's not as if the Khmer state never wrote anything down, they left lots of stone inscriptions. It's just that none of what they wrote survived until today. My opinion on why samurai and Japanese history is more prominent in the west is that it is entirely because of taste in art and differential western exposure to media. I have in impression that the Japanese produced many more inexpensive woodblock prints than Qing China, which preferred ink scrolls as artistic media, and that Japanese artists more frequently depicted scenes from history and theatre which often included warriors than their Chinese contemporary artists. Following the different social and development paths Japan and China took post WWII, western audiences including myself have been exposed to more Japanese culture than Chinese, and Japanese popular media also often romanticizes feudal history more than modern China does its own past. Korea mostly slips through the cracks in western conciousness by being smaller than its neighbors and until recently relatively poor. I think awareness of the counties history is growing though, and they have increasingly produced many good and highly accurate films about the history of like the following very serious and scholarly work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tk80iXCspM
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:49
|
|
|
Squalid posted:The problem with Southeast Asian history is that there isn't very much of it. To put that in less obnoxious terms, few sources have survived to present. The reasons for this are various but in part climatic -- paper documents don't last long in the tropics. Our ignorance on this matter isn't solely due to the eurocentrism of our education, for many places and eras there just isn't much written information available period. For example the only sources on life in the Khmer Empire, which still existed in the 15th century, are by Chinese visitors. It's not as if the Khmer state never wrote anything down, they left lots of stone inscriptions. It's just that none of what they wrote survived until today. I love that movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I'm interested in Soviet tank winter camo. I assume it's not just 'paint the things white' Yes, sometimes you don't paint the entire thing white.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Korea mostly slips through the cracks in western conciousness by being smaller than its neighbors and until recently relatively poor. Not to pick on you specifically but this sort of sentence is basically what I meant. Saying "its neighbors," as though Japan is not also immensely smaller than China, or the assumption that because Korea was markedly poorer than Japan in the mid 19th and 20th centuries, it was always that way. The biggest reason Korea slips through the cracks is because Japan controlled basically its entire narrative from the moment it got opened up to the west until 1945, and the narrative they chose to promote was that Koreans have never done anything of note and are incapable of ruling themselves, so we should get to be the ones that do it instead. It's a narrative that was common to a whole hell of the lot of the world beyond Europe, and one that Japan happened to get spared from having to share, and in my opinion that's the main reason they get a different spot in world history. Not to sideline Japanese accomplishments because a lot of it is genuinely incredible, but the same goes for lots of other parts of the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 03:41
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Not to pick on you specifically but this sort of sentence is basically what I meant. Saying "its neighbors," as though Japan is not also immensely smaller than China, or the assumption that because Korea was markedly poorer than Japan in the mid 19th and 20th centuries, it was always that way. The biggest reason Korea slips through the cracks is because Japan controlled basically its entire narrative from the moment it got opened up to the west until 1945, and the narrative they chose to promote was that Koreans have never done anything of note and are incapable of ruling themselves, so we should get to be the ones that do it instead. It's a narrative that was common to a whole hell of the lot of the world beyond Europe, and one that Japan happened to get spared from having to share, and in my opinion that's the main reason they get a different spot in world history. Not to sideline Japanese accomplishments because a lot of it is genuinely incredible, but the same goes for lots of other parts of the world. I can believe that. Though I think this tendency to dismiss Korean accomplishments might also have been exacerbated by Koreans own tendency to denigrate the Joseon dynasty and blame the old ideology of neo-Confucianism for the loss of Korean independence and prestige during the early 20th century. Still I think the prevalence of pop culture is the biggest driver of popular awareness, and as Korea's entertainment industry has grown so has general awareness of the nation's history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Yeah, I think you're right about that. I wonder if Black Panther will get a generation of kids to grow up with a growing interest in Sub-Saharan Africa.Squalid posted:Though I think this tendency to dismiss Korean accomplishments might also have been exacerbated by Koreans own tendency to denigrate the Joseon dynasty and blame the old ideology of neo-Confucianism for the loss of Korean independence and prestige during the early 20th century. For sure, and the tendency in more recent times for some Korean historians to go flatly, borderline-comically revisionist in the other direction isn't doing their narrative any favors either. But both of those were themselves shaped as reactions to Japanese/western ideas/encroachments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Koramei posted:For sure, and the tendency in more recent times for some Korean historians to go flatly, borderline-comically revisionist in the other direction isn't doing their narrative any favors either. But both of those were themselves shaped as reactions to Japanese/western ideas/encroachments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:you missed the best part of that page Avatar material up in this joint: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:They should play their wind instruments on their old school bikes. That'd be impressive. Italian march band should consist of Vespas and old FIAT 500's beeping and honking their horns*. *set to specific tunes, otherwise I'm just describing their traffic
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Yeah, I think you're right about that. I wonder if Black Panther will get a generation of kids to grow up with a growing interest in Sub-Saharan Africa. Random gripe about Black Panther: King of isolationist but wealthy and technically advanced country in the heart of Africa decides he will slowly begin opening his country's borders to the world, and giving aid to help oppressed people. But who to help first... ah yes, American children in LA! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 05:05
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
khwarezm posted:"Honorary Whites." Fun fact: A Japanese immigrant to the United States sued the federal government to be declared white. Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922) Personally, I think the vast majority of Japan's disproportionate shadow in the popular conscious is an artifact of relatively recent history. Being the first non-Western country to achieve post-industrial Great Power status, followed by the American occupation post-WWII, enabled both more and more-Japanese-controlled media penetration into the West. PittTheElder posted:Random gripe about Black Panther: King of isolationist but wealthy and technically advanced country in the heart of Africa decides he will slowly begin opening his country's borders to the world, and giving aid to help oppressed people. But who to help first... ah yes, American children in LA! To be fair here, this derives directly from his uncle and cousin's interests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
Yeah sure but it was literally the ghetto his uncle died in and the same place the cousin he just got done stabbing to death grew up. Also the cousins whole thing was using wakandan super weapons to arm poo poo upon urban minorities to burn down historic systems of repression. On the one hand the family thing makes dealing with it personally appealing and on the other not having a powder keg under the big prosperous countries is probably a good thing. The hosed up parts of Africa come up in the movie but the narrative is almost entirely about the promise of Africa and African people vs the hosed up reality represented by the sorry state of race relations in America. The whole thing with the cousin discovering his true heritage and his status as an African prince is a not subtle nod to slavery and the experience of african descended people in America. I mean gently caress it’s based on a comic about a hero named Black Panther that first came out in the mid 70s. That poo poo has always been way more about race in the US than the legacy of colonialism in Africa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah sure but it was literally the ghetto his uncle died in and the same place the cousin he just got done stabbing to death grew up. Also the cousins whole thing was using wakandan super weapons to arm poo poo upon urban minorities to burn down historic systems of repression. On the one hand the family thing makes dealing with it personally appealing and on the other not having a powder keg under the big prosperous countries is probably a good thing. I think the comic book character got named before the organization
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
The Black Panther Party was founded in 1966. Issue 1 of Black Panther came out in 1977.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The Black Panther Party was founded in 1966. The character debuted in July 1966. Fantastic Four #52. The party was founded in October 1966.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:The character debuted in July 1966. Fantastic Four #52. The party was founded in October 1966. Huh. Color me corrected on that then. I still stand by the rest of what I said about how he movie is structured.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 05:57
|
|
|
PzII Ausf G, H, and M Queue: Marder III, Pershing trials in the USSR, Tiger study in the USSR, PIAT, SU-76, Heavy tanks M6, M6A1, and T1E1, SAu 40 and other medium SPGs, IS-2 (Object 234) and other Soviet heavy howitzer tanks, T-70B, SU-152, T-26 improved track projects, Object 238 and other improvements on the KV-1S, Lee and Grant tanks in British service, Matilda, T26E4 Super Pershing, GMC M12, PzII Ausf. J, VK 30.01(P)/Typ 100/Leopard, VK 36.01(H), Luchs, Leopard, and other recon tanks, PzIII Ausf. G trials in the USSR, SU-203, 105 mm howitzer M2A1, Mosin, Baranov's pocket mortar, Pz.Sfl.IVc, Jagdpanzer 38(t) "Hetzer", Semovente L40 da 47/32, Semovente da 75/18, Semovente da 105/25 Available for request:  IM-1 squeezebore cannon 45 mm M-6 gun Schmeisser's work in the USSR Object 237 (IS-1 prototype) SU-85 T-29-5 KV-85 Tank sleds T-80 (the light tank) Proposed Soviet heavy tank destroyers DS-39 tank machinegun IS-1 (IS-85) IS-2 (object 240) Russian Renault Soviet tank winter camo MS-1/T-18  25-pounder 25-pounder "Baby" Cruiser Tank Mk.I Cruiser Tank Mk.II Valentine III and V Valentine IX Valentine X and XI  37 mm Anti-Tank Gun M3 36 inch Little David mortar Medium Tank M3 use in the USSR GMC M8 105 mm howitzer M3 Scorpion  15 cm sIG 33 10.5 cm leFH 18 7.5 cm LG 40 10.5 cm LG 42 Tiger (P) Stahlhelm in WWI Stahlhelm in WWII Nashorn/Hornisse PzIII Ausf. E and F PzIII Ausf. G and H Ferdinand 17 cm K i. Mrs. Laf. Grosstraktor Trials of the PzIII Ausf. H in the USSR NEW   47 mm wz.25 infantry gun 7TP and Vickers Mk.E trials in the USSR 7.92 mm wz. 35 anti-tank rifle 76.2 mm wz. 1902 and 75 mm wz. 1902/26  SD-100 (Czech SU-100 clone)  Hotchkiss H 35 and H 39 Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Mar 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
drunk as gently caress at a conference, god bless you all
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:drunk as gently caress at a conference, god bless you all Drunk at a conference is redundant and you know it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 07:35
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Drunk at a conference is redundant and you know it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 07:39
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:waking up in a ditch to own the
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 09:19
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Catholics in particular are interesting. European ones don't really care. American ones are so Nothing says post-modern like telling the pope to read the bible  FAUXTON posted:I wonder if you get more beautiful plumage with rank/distinction. They're grouse feathers 
Tias fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Mar 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 09:28
|
|
about it that the US Bishops recently took shots at the Pope for being wrong about Poping.
|
Ensign Expendable posted:PzII Ausf G, H, and M I'd be interested in all the Italian stuff; I've heard the semoventes were decent designs for a place that made lovely tanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 11:57
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:its because britain spent 300 years controlling the narrative Now now. That is way too generous, I'd say more closer to 175 years.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 13:44
|
|
|
Clarence posted:[KRRC have a frank exchange of views with the enemy] Someone observed, in response to a little foreboding, "oh, it'll be okay, the Spring Offensive doesn't start for a couple of weeks". And yet, here they are getting involved in heavy fighting. This is a pre-battle diversionary attack, a tactic that was adopted by all sides in early 1915, as soon as it became obvious that you couldn't totally conceal from aerial observation the movement of vast amounts of extra men, materiel, and activity into a sector that you were going to attack out of. (If it were the actual start of a major offensive, the battalion diary would have come to a sudden stop as everyone in it got either killed or captured.) To get an idea of the scale of this sort of thing, the Battle of Verdun (starting on 21 February) was preceded by the following diversionary operations, against the French and against the BEF: Vimy, 9 February Frise, 10 February Frise & Pilckem Ridge, 12 February Soissons & Hooge, 13 February The Bluff, 14 February Frezenberg, 18 February Boesinghe, 20 February It was extremely effective; French commander-in-chief General Joffre did not subsequently acknowledge that there was a major enemy operation underway at Verdun until about the 24th or 25th, and therefore was unable to commit large numbers of reserves until then. Subsequent offensives on both sides were preceded by ever-larger and more elaborate schemes involving model guns, tanks, and rear-area shelters, increased aerial flying, and even false extra troop and ammunition trains. In most cases they were very successful in interfering with the enemy's ability to react to the Big Push when it came, for fear of weakening themselves against the real thrust of the offensive a few days later. In 1918, the Spring Offensive was on a large enough scale that the deception ended up being "They made it look like they were going to attack everywhere, which obviously they couldn't possibly be, but now they seem to actually be doing it", which proved extremely effective. Diversionary operations took different forms depending on the location and the people planning it. This one seems to have been more elaborate than most, a full-on local attack attempting to make a small gain in ground. Sometimes these were done more in hope than expectation, but very often a local attack to seize some point of local significance (a hilltop, a small wood, an old farmhouse or chateau, a particularly large crater) would be incorporated into the plans for an upcoming offensive and timed for maximum psychological effect. Much more common was a "demonstration" (often called, with typical British Empire sensitivity, a "Chinese attack"), in which a pre-battle bombardment would be simulated, and then followed by the men shouting and firing rifles and machine guns, officers blowing whistles and so on, but nobody actually leaving the trenches. The bombardment would then resume about five minutes later to catch defenders coming up out of their dugouts; repeat until bored.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Regarding Korean history, just how awesome and badass Admiral Yi was I just had no knowledge of until Extra History. Until then I only knew "Japan tried to invade Korea the first time in the 1500's but lost because the Koreans made especially armoured ships they just couldn't figure out an answer to for some reason."quote:In 1918, the Spring Offensive was on a large enough scale that the deception ended up being "They made it look like they were going to attack everywhere, which obviously they couldn't possibly be, but now they seem to actually be doing it", which proved extremely effective. Hey look Deep Battle just without the rapid reinforcement of the successful push bit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:drunk as gently caress at a conference, god bless you all Free booze best booze, shine on you crazy diamond.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Regarding Korean history, just how awesome and badass Admiral Yi was I just had no knowledge of until Extra History. Until then I only knew "Japan tried to invade Korea the first time in the 1500's but lost because the Koreans made especially armoured ships they just couldn't figure out an answer to for some reason." While he's still definitely an amazing figure and some of his achievements speak for themselves, admiral Yi has probably been over mythologized, unfortunately. Since he was seen as the figure in fighting back against the Japanese historically, during the colonial period he took on (and has kept) a basically ironclad status as Korea's national hero, and Korean scholars have been really un-keen on rocking that boat. So events surrounding his life haven't necessarily been read into as critically as they maybe should have, and the role of the Ming navy has been downplayed relative to Joseon's and so on. As he gets better known in the west and non-Korean scholars take more interest I expect he'll get reevaluated a bit. On the other side of that for things getting reevaluated re: the Imjin War--and this not having gotten attention also hasn't been helped by Koreans playing up "against all odds, admiral Yi single-handedly saves the day"--Hideyoshi's armies, after (and probably in part because of) their incredible initial success, very quickly got horrifically overextended and may have been well on their way to losing before Ming intervention even started. It's a very well recorded war from all sides, but there's a huge amount that's still not well known about it, because each side has had a super strong bias in looking back on it and there hasn't really been any unifying work done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
I always find it interesting how little the Japanese interacted with the outside world militarily. Before the Meiji era, were there any other wars with outside entities apart from the Mongol invasions, the Korean invasions and I guess the invasion of the Ryukyu islands?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I always find it interesting how little the Japanese interacted with the outside world militarily. Before the Meiji era, were there any other wars with outside entities apart from the Mongol invasions, the Korean invasions and I guess the invasion of the Ryukyu islands? There was a poo poo-ton of piracy based out of Japan, so even in the absence of a capital-W War their neighbors in China and Korea would certainly get to know them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
They did a bunch in the first millennium during Korea's Three Kingdoms period, generally aligned with the kingdom of Baekje, most significantly just after it was destroyed in the 7th century, when they mounted an invasion against Silla + the Tang alongside Baekje remnants to try to reestablish the kingdom. The specific details, especially going back before that, get reeeally murky though and it's all subject to a huge amount of debate and controversy. Traditional Japanese legend was that their empress Jingu conquered the whole of Korea way back in the 100s and the kingdoms there--particularly Baekje and the Gaya confederacy--remained subservient to Japan until Silla eventually kicked them out. This was used as a big propaganda point by Imperial Japan for its takeover of Korea, but actual evidence is pretty much nonexistent (for one thing there almost certainly wasn't a proper Yamato state at that point or ever even an actual empress Jingu) and as is the nature with early East Asian history recorded in classical Chinese where each of the characters can be read in thirty different ways, what little evidence does exist can easily be spun around in the total opposite direction, making Baekje out to be the ones dominating the early Yamato state instead (as many a revisionist Korean historian has tried to argue). Whatever the actual situation though, "Japan" was definitely interacting in some sense with "Korea" a bunch in that early period, for what their identities were even Japanese or Korean--which is actually another, again very controversial, part of the story: the peoples of the far southern peninsula and the closer parts of the archipelago were very possibly more akin to each other during "Jingu's" period than they were to the more northern peninsular or farther flung archipelago-an peoples that we in modern times conflate them with. This was all right around the tail end of Japan's Yayoi period, where migration from the Korean peninsula (although these peoples wouldn't have been "Korean" in any modern sense) supplanted/integrated with/whatevered the earlier indigenous peoples of the Japanese archipelago, and material evidence indicates their cultural links remained pretty strong for centuries. Separating out the various Wa Japanese polities and nascent Korean kingdoms as wholly unrelated in this early period is likely somewhat inaccurate, and they were probably interacting with each other in trade, war, and otherwise a whole lot. Even when the identities became clearer during Korea's Three Kingdoms period there was a huge amount of migration from the peninsula to the archipelago (mostly from Baekje) which again muddies the identities a lot, although that would end come Silla's ascendancy at the end. Unrelated to all that and pirates, it's also worth remembering that Japan's adventures in northern Honshu and then Hokkaido were with the outside world in a sense, even though we think of it all as Japan today. Koramei fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Mar 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
Koramei posted:While he's still definitely an amazing figure and some of his achievements speak for themselves, admiral Yi has probably been over mythologized, unfortunately. Since he was seen as the figure in fighting back against the Japanese historically, during the colonial period he took on (and has kept) a basically ironclad status as Korea's national hero, and Korean scholars have been really un-keen on rocking that boat. So events surrounding his life haven't necessarily been read into as critically as they maybe should have, and the role of the Ming navy has been downplayed relative to Joseon's and so on. As he gets better known in the west and non-Korean scholars take more interest I expect he'll get reevaluated a bit. Anyone who wants to learn more about the man should watch the amazing documentary The Admiral: Roaring Currents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
Koramei posted:While he's still definitely an amazing figure and some of his achievements speak for themselves, admiral Yi has probably been over mythologized, unfortunately. Since he was seen as the figure in fighting back against the Japanese historically, during the colonial period he took on (and has kept) a basically ironclad status as Korea's national hero, and Korean scholars have been really un-keen on rocking that boat. So events surrounding his life haven't necessarily been read into as critically as they maybe should have, and the role of the Ming navy has been downplayed relative to Joseon's and so on. As he gets better known in the west and non-Korean scholars take more interest I expect he'll get reevaluated a bit. Yeah this was pointed out by James in the Lies episode for their Yi series; the historiography surrounding Yi reads very much like a Confucian fable and fits a sort of narrative of "The virtuous officer is schemed against by corrupt and cowardly officials, and is restored in rank after he saves the day!". That series *did* also happen to bring up the Ming's intervention and how important it was; the final battle where Yi saved the Chinese admiral's life a bunch of times but died before he could thank him brought tears to my eyes.  edit: Triggered someone on reddit when I asserted that "Even if Britain lost the air war of the Battle of Britain Sea Lion had zero chance of success"; what were the principle arguments again why Sea Lion was going to be a massive fuckup and which book is the goto source explaining why? I recall that the landing craft were completely unsuitable and the Germans just lacked the shipping to supply a serious land invasion of the coast (which would likely have no useable port facilities due to sabotage). Additionally presumably even with air superiority, the Royal Navy probably isn't going to be driven from the channel? Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Mar 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 06:43
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Yeah this was pointed out by James in the Lies episode for their Yi series; the historiography surrounding Yi reads very much like a Confucian fable and fits a sort of narrative of "The virtuous officer is schemed against by corrupt and cowardly officials, and is restored in rank after he saves the day!". That series *did* also happen to bring up the Ming's intervention and how important it was; the final battle where Yi saved the Chinese admiral's life a bunch of times but died before he could thank him brought tears to my eyes. This classic article covers most of it, but the tl;dr is that Germany didn't have any way to transport troops to Britain or support them if they got there, and what little planning for the operation that did occur indicates that it would have been a collosal disaster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 06:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
They were going to attach river barges to tug boats (or destroyers/pt poats? can't remember) to try to cross the channel with their landing force. Risky as gently caress even if there's no opposition at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 06:59
|
|
