|
ninjahedgehog posted:In most of European history "Emperor" meant Roman emperor specifically -- pretty much everyone using an imperial title considered their realm a Roman successor, including the HRE, Russia and Bulgaria. The Russian one has some interesting nuance in that there are two layers: "Tsar" comes in with the consolidation of power in Ivan the Great and the idea of Third Rome, but also derives from a previous mistranslation of Caesar as "king" and its back-application to the kings of biblical Israel; while later Peter the Great claimed the title of Imperator and rule over the Russian Empire rather than Tsardom. Silver2195 posted:I always found it odd that the title of Emperor stuck around in China after the Qin were overthrown. To dig deeper into the linguistics, though I'm sure not as well as Xiahou Dun could because I'm reliant on Japanese sources, well. The primary Chinese word translated as Emperor is 皇帝. As I mentioned, it's an explicit claim of inherent divine right, but it accomplishes that in a different way than the later coinings: there was one group of semihistorical-at-best rulers who were 皇 (golden age saintly rulers, two elements, debatably combined in descending order of credence: "白 white, bright, flame pronounced like 王", "白 white, bright, flame 王 king", and "自 auto- 王 king"), and another which were 帝 (ancestral god-kings, single element, debatably a pictogram of a sacrificial altar or pyre, or of a constellation that would have appeared at the north celestial pole where the sky god resided during the time when Chinese writing was developing.) As the warring states period began to condense, various pseudoimperial titles began to develop for regional rulers: the last three, nearly powerless, Zhou successors attempted to regain authority by claiming to be 天子 "Son of Heaven" from 323 BC and assigning an intermediary title 覇王 "Hegemon King" to the Qi who were at their peak. The Qi declined very soon after as the Qin in particular rose, but during the time when they were both major players (288 BC) they extended each other the dignity of 帝 in comparison to their competitor 王. In 221 BC, after his conquest of China as a whole, Zheng of Qin (that is, Qin Shi Huang) adopted the compound 皇帝 to denote himself as "superior to the 皇 in ability to abolish the power of the lords, and in fact equal to the 帝". He was, of course, not able to abolish the power of the lords, and the elevation of a suitably dull, incurious, and imperious son to suit the needs of court strivers led to the regional nobility climbing right back in. They mostly termed themselves 王, but the Chu, a large and powerful demesne who were instrumental in the Qin defeat, produced two exceptions: Huai Ⅱ, member of a cadet branch of the royalty raised as a figurehead 王 and later 義帝 "Righteous 帝", and Xiang Yu, whose family were the powers behind that recreated throne and who had himself placed on it as Hegemon King once Huai II had moved on up to nominally overseeing the loose alliance of rebels. Xiang Yu's arrogation of power also included claiming Guanzhong, the Qin capital region, which Huai Ⅱ had promised to the first rebel faction to take it. This annoyed, in particular, one Liu Bang, the weaker rival who had in fact secured its surrender. This was an unstable time, full of debate over how much Qin authority was useful vs. overreach and whether the rebels as a whole had fought to depose Qin or to raise Chu; in 206 a civil war ensued between 王 aligned with Chu and those aligned with the lesser fiefdom of Han that Liu Bang had been created, and Han won out over the following four years. At this point, 皇帝 was the less-tainted title for "king of kings", and while we can't be sure how much of Liu Bang's initial refusal to accept it was an attempt to convince his allies that they'd be left unmolested in their fiefs, it turns out they weren't--his code of laws borrowed much from the Qin, he was quick with demoting them one by one before they could firm a coherent resistance, and by his own death in 196 BC from wounds suffered during a campagn to subjugate the second-to-last semi-independent 王 there were neither the elements for a feudal revolt (as he'd devoted his reign to disempowering his unrelated vassals) nor a court coup (as the regions were run by Lius), and after a decade or so of dynastic struggle there was a succession of strong and long-reigning emperors whose mothers were from unimportant families that truly solidified it. So tl;dr consolidation, rise of "Emperor", successful rebellion against "Emperor" and replacement with the more traditional "Hegemon", immediate collapse into infighting to the point that when there's an eventual winner "Emperor" is less scary than "Hegemon", new "Emperor" learned his lesson well re: purging allies so this is the one that stuck. But it's also disconnected from "Emperor" in English which is why this post is littered with hanzi; it's a remarkable twist that 皇帝 survived but if 覇王 had instead and been taken as a family title for a few hundred years it too probably would have been adopted by the next dynasty, then Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese to claim equivalence, and it too probably would have been translated into English as "Emperor".
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2023 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Thanks! I was aware of the general etymology of 皇帝, but was fuzzy on the rest of the story. I'm still a bit puzzled because I thought Confucian thought tended to be big on both the "rectification of names" and the idea that the early Zhou Dynasty was a golden age, which would seem to imply that the person in charge should go back to being a 王 just like the Kings of Zhou. But the only Chinese ruler I'm aware of to actually reject the title of 皇帝 was Hong Xiuquan, who thought that 帝 should be reserved for God alone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
Confucianism, like all conservative philosophies, cares little for internal consistency and much more for giving the people in charge a big ol’ bellyful of good tummy feels. It’s a fixed hierarchy, so under no circumstances should you stop giving the literal son of heaven whatever he wants. Also, Mandoric, if you would like to just write all my posts for me, by all means. It’d be very convenient for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2023 00:49
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:There's also a whole deal with one of the commonly used definitions of "empire" where they rule over many different peoples, which the formation of Germany nominally was about all the people of the unifying states self-defining themselves as a single people, so the title of empire seems contrary to that, although it does put the state of Germany on an equal footing to Austria, where most of the Germans who didn't end up in Germany remained. Mind you that people regarded this differently before nationalism started to florish in the wake of Napoleonic wars. The concept of identity based on nationality wasn't made up from scratch by German poets, but it took a whole new meaning when the cultured bourgeoisie of Elbonia decided that they could be more than just eternal vassals of the Cobristan Empire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2023 07:19
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Confucianism, like all conservative philosophies, cares little for internal consistency and much more for giving the people in charge a big ol’ bellyful of good tummy feels. It’s a fixed hierarchy, so under no circumstances should you stop giving the literal son of heaven whatever he wants. That's a rather...dismissive view. What about the whole concept of 諫?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
Yes, it was. Because I’m very dismissive of ol’ Kongzi. And o wow. If someone higher up the great chain of worthiness that is Confucianism does a bad thing, you are obligated and honor bound… to send them a very strongly worded letter saying how disappointed you are. Great. That’ll make it all better. Really holding their feet to the fire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Really holding their feet to the fire. Sounds like you're a fan of Legalism then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2023 21:30
|
|
|
Were there plans to use atomic bombs on Germany during World War II, assuming they had been developed in time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2023 14:03
|
|
|
two fish posted:Were there plans to use atomic bombs on Germany during World War II, assuming they had been developed in time? Restricted Data: FDR and the bomb quote:Lastly, there is one other significant FDR-specific datapoint, which I have written about at length before. In late December 1944, with Yalta looming, Roosevelt and Groves met in the Oval Office (along with Henry Stimson, the Secretary of War). In Groves’ much later recollection (so we can make of that what we will), Roosevelt asked if the atomic bomb might be ready to use against Germany very soon. Groves explained that for a variety of reasons, the most important one being that their schedule had pushed the bomb back to the summer of 1945, this would not be possible. It is an interesting piece, one that simultaneously reveals Roosevelt’s potential willingness to use the atomic bomb as a first-strike weapon, his willingness to use it against Germany specifically, and the fact that FDR was sufficiently out of the loop on planning discussions to not know that this would both be impossible and very difficult. Here is a blog post by a historian/professor of nuclear history about your exact question: Would the atomic bomb have been used against Germany? DTurtle fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Jul 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2023 14:37
|
|
|
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0NQkocR2hk
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2023 04:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2023 04:58
|
|
|
I was gonna post a different pic as a response but I'm not gonna post it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2023 05:02
|
|
|
I know judo was the official martial art of the Japanese Navy, did the Army have its own 'official' one?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2023 09:33
|
|
|
Gunkata was invented so they didn't have to share
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2023 11:27
|
|
|
Groda posted:Gunkata was invented so they didn't have to share They should've asked the US Navy to share their spare guns. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2023 12:15
|
|
|
The US Navy's monograph, Naval Aviation Combat Statistics—World War II (https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/histories/naval-aviation/aviation-monographs/nasc.pdf), not only has a lot of fascinating data and interpretations, but the data can even be reinterpreted - especially by comparing data across multiple tables. For fun, I tried to separate the "action sorties" of 1942 actions into the individual fleet carriers (CVs 2-8). The year 1942 is the only one in which this finite level of separation is easily possible as 1943 & beyond has a magnitude greater number of carriers (all types) and multi-carrier actions are the rule rather than the exception. Even then 1942 is inexact as I simply distributed actions sorties equally between all participating carriers in multi-carrier actions. Important details: - Definition of "Action Sortie" = "Number of planes taking off on a mission which eventuated in an attack on an enemy target or in aerial combat, or both. This basis of tabulation was the number of planes of one squadron taking off on the mission. If any of these planes had action, the entire squadron's planes on the mission were counted as action sorties, including abortive planes, planes which reached the target but did not attack, and planes which escorted or patrolled but did not engage in combat. Thus if 16 VF took off as escort, 2 returned early, 2 engaged in combat, and 4 strafed, all 16 were counted as action sorties. On the other hand, if 8 VF took off for escort, and none engaged in any sort of attack or combat, then none were counted as action sorties, even though they reached the target, and even though the escorted bombers attacked the target. Likewise, CAP planes missions, none of whose planes engaged in combat were not counted as action sorties." - Data is compiled from thousands of reports across the US Navy's direct participation in World War II. How reports were captured changed over the war. There are some errors from the data and general typographical errors in the monograph. I recommend engaging with the monograph's frontmatter on any concerns about the data. - In the case of multi-carrier actions, such as the Battle of Midway, I distributed action sorties between all participating carriers equally. Notably, I removed the Wasp from participation in the Battle of Eastern Solomons. The specificity of "Action Sortie" versus sortie dissuaded me from attempting to use war diaries and action reports to precisely identify individual carrier action sorties. - In the case of multi-day actions, such as the Battle of Coral Sea, I attempted to verify the number of Days by corroborating carrier war diaries. This resulted in shortening North Africa to 3 Days as the only action sorties on 11 November were by a few CVE strikes that mistakenly occurred after the ceasefire. - Quantity does not directly correlate to quality. The carriers (CVs 2-8) are ranked by quantity with no interpretation of quality. - Apologies for the table embedded as an image. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
Did Franco rule Spain to the standard that Spanish nationalists wanted?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 06:52
|
|
|
Urcinius posted:. drat. That's something to just casually throw out there. If I am reading it correctly, roughly twice as many aircraft see combat in landings than naval battles?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 07:32
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:drat. That's something to just casually throw out there. Makes sense. An enemy surface group might get sunk, or slip away into a squall or the like. A beach stays where it is, doesn't sink, and infantry love air support.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 08:46
|
|
|
Arrath posted:Makes sense. An enemy surface group might get sunk, or slip away into a squall or the like. A beach stays where it is, doesn't sink, and infantry love air support. And, also, judging by the experience of British carriers in the Mediterranean, you've got a big fleet sitting stationary off a whole bunch of enemy air bases, so your CAP gets a workout too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 14:15
|
|
|
Well, look at the Guadalcanal landings for example. You had Fletcher's carriers provide air cover for two days, strafing sea planes, intercepting land based enemy aircraft, and so on. They were pretty much busy for the entire period. Then a bit later you have the Battle of the Eastern Solomons in the same campaign. For most of the entire day, the carriers basically sent out scouts while they waited with an attack force ready for when they sighted the Japanese carriers. A partial strike was sent out at a light carrier that was sighted, but Fletcher wanted to reserve some offensive power in case the proper carriers were seen. Then there's the wildcats that were sent out when the Japanese attack wave was sighted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 14:32
|
|
|
Arrath posted:Makes sense. An enemy surface group might get sunk, or slip away into a squall or the like. A beach stays where it is, doesn't sink, and infantry love air support. the major carrier clashes in 1942 looked something like: 1) 2 carrier groups enter area (sometimes not even aware of the other's presense) 2) both sides launch scouting planes to look for enemy carrier group, spotting is done by pilot's eye-balls, pilots frequently misidentify ships/give wrong information 3) one or both side takes a gamble and launches an air strike at something they -perceive- to be the "main" enemy carrier group 4) strike planes often get lost/fail to find target on the way, or the scout planes gave the wrong information the enemy carriers are aren't there 5) the side that actually lands the first strike on the enemy carriers wins 6) one or both sides withdraw from the area due to losses 1942 was the era before there were things like satellites, just figuring out where the enemy carriers are is literally half the battle. That really limits the number of strikes that could be launched. Typo fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Jul 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
The wrong information in that case being like misidentifying a location or bearing? Or like flat out not knowing where they are?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
the yeti posted:The wrong information in that case being like misidentifying a location or bearing? Or like flat out not knowing where they are? sometimes it's wrong bearing/location more often though it's misidentifying ship types like from a fast moving plane ships are just tiny specks on the horizon and pilots have to use their eyes to figure out what they were based on their profile. So mistake will be made, especially when a lot of ships look similar During Coral Sea for instance the Japanese scout reported the oiler Neosho as a carrier, so the IJN launched a huge strike at it thinking it was a carrier. They sank it, but it was not worth the resource commitment
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
Have a few more tables! - Apologies again for tables embedded as images Tons of Bombs Dropped and Enemy Aircraft Engaged & Destroyed for each Action  Tons of Bombs Dropped by each Carrier - Again, multi-carrier actions are distributed evenly between all participating carriers  Enemy Aircraft Destroyed by each Carrier - Again, multi-carrier actions are distributed evenly between all participating carriers  In the table in my prior post, average Action Sorties per carrier per day for both Raids and Battles matches one full effort of a carrier air group less reconnaissance & defensive patrols. As already pointed out by others, the average carrier battle did in fact usually involve just one major strike per carrier per day. Whichever side got the worst of the exchange usually retired. Ultimately unsurprising but good that the overall trend generally matches experience. However, Eastern Solomons is an odd Battle as the number of Actions Sorties per Carrier per Day at 89 far exceeds the average 59.9 - more than one full air group per day. The best I can figure looking at the data and rereading the battle, the US Navy had an unusually successful day with the carriers' CAP shooting down Japanese snoopers. This would inflate the total Action Sorties above the Action Sorties for just strikes, both own offensive strikes and defending against Japanese strikes. As there are only two Landings in 1942, I decided to compare them more directly. Technically, the choice of additional sources favors every carrier except Ranger. The CVE total sorties includes Non-Action Sorties for the entire operation and not just for the three days of action. The Enemy Aircraft Destroyed for the Guadalcanal Landing are from a 1943 US Navy wartime source that did not have access to Japanese records to verify claims against the true losses in Japanese planes. As Ranger was and still shows as such a strong outlier, I figured the variance was within acceptable bounds.  Of note is the difference in landing at the loci of opposing air power. The Torch Landing operation in Morocco landed at and near the airfields of the French Air Force and Navy. The majority of the French planes were destroyed in offensive air missions. Whereas, the Guadalcanal Landing operation landed away from the locus of Japanese airpower, Rabaul, but within Japanese attack range from Rabaul. Thus, the far greater number of Japanese planes engaged in the air. Otherwise, the two Landings are remarkably similar in stats for two very different operations. Easily noticeable is the one CV for Torch shouldering the vast majority of the offensive sorties and the CVEs shouldering the defensive sorties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 16:48
|
|
|
Urcinius posted:Have a few more tables! You're good, pretty sure forums posts don't have to be 508 compliant. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 18:03
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:You're good, pretty sure forums posts don't have to be 508 compliant. I look forward to my posts being evidence in the ADA suit against SA for all this site’s fat stacks of  Probably should include a table putting 1942 in context of the total numbers across the US Navy’s direct participation. 
Urcinius fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Jul 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
the yeti posted:The wrong information in that case being like misidentifying a location or bearing? Or like flat out not knowing where they are? Recall that in this era the scout planes have no way to actually fix their own location, and it's all based on dead reckoning with compass bearings. So they've been flying out on some bearing for hours, and would have to figure out their location based on where the carrier was when they took off. There is a lot of room for error to creep into that calculation (maybe your bearing is wrong, maybe the wind is blowing you sideways faster than you think it is, etc.), and then the strike aircraft have to repeat it again (see a bunch of squadrons at Midway following an incorrect bearing and flying off to nowhere).
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 19:05
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Recall that in this era the scout planes have no way to actually fix their own location, and it's all based on dead reckoning with compass bearings. So they've been flying out on some bearing for hours, and would have to figure out their location based on where the carrier was when they took off. There is a lot of room for error to creep into that calculation (maybe your bearing is wrong, maybe the wind is blowing you sideways faster than you think it is, etc.), and then the strike aircraft have to repeat it again (see a bunch of squadrons at Midway following an incorrect bearing and flying off to nowhere). Oh sure, like I didn’t intend to sound like not knowing your location seemed implausible or anything, I just wasn’t sure where the errors stack up
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 20:00
|
|
|
I had some notion that resources to scouting increased as time went on, but my source for that is my butt. So seeing a 2x difference between naval battles and ground operations surprises me as being too low.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Recall that in this era the scout planes have no way to actually fix their own location, and it's all based on dead reckoning with compass bearings. So they've been flying out on some bearing for hours, and would have to figure out their location based on where the carrier was when they took off. There is a lot of room for error to creep into that calculation (maybe your bearing is wrong, maybe the wind is blowing you sideways faster than you think it is, etc.), and then the strike aircraft have to repeat it again (see a bunch of squadrons at Midway following an incorrect bearing and flying off to nowhere). At Midway the USS Hornet's fighter squadron upon returning to their carrier thought their own carrier were actually -Japanese- Carriers when they sighted them so they just kept flying and all ditched into the ocean on the flip side during Coral Sea some Japanese scout planes almost successfully landed on the -AMERICAN- carrier thinking it was their own and quickly flew off that was how imprecise and jury-rigged carrier operations were in their early days: you were just flying into thousands of miles of empty Ocean with a map and a compass, hoping to find a bunch of moving specks called ships Typo fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jul 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 20:55
|
|
|
Better than the German guy who landed at an RAF airstrip totally on accident.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Better than the German guy who landed at an RAF airstrip totally on accident. That was a combination of combat disorientation on the part of the pilot and the same combat (which included an Immelman turn) 'toppling' the Fw190's gyrocompass. This was a common problem on WW2 fighters, especially early in the war. Fighters' compasses and artificial horizons would be thrown off by combat manoeuvers and would need several minutes of straight-and-level flying to regain their correct readings and levels, and severe manoeuvres could lead to the gyros needing to be reset on the ground. Later these instruments could be 'caged' - mechanically locked in place before combat so normal operation could be restored quickly when the fighting was over. Aircraft were equipped with magnetic compasses so pilots could readjust the gyro compass if it was thrown into disarray (and because all gyro compasses gradually drift from the correct reading with time as the Earth rotates beneath them) but this depended on the pilot (possibly injured, fatigued and certainly high on adrenaline properly diagnosing a gyro error/failure and the magnetic compass being functional and accurate - they were also prone to the card jamming in the housing during hard combat. This was the one saving grace of the RAF fitting its fighters with the infamous P8 aperiodic compass, which was a huge piece of ironmongery that looked like it came off a warship and was deeply confusing to set up and use, but could be used for actual navigation as a back-up to the gyrocompass, while the magnetic compasses fitted to most American and German aircraft were functionally little better than ones from a toyshop. In Armin Faber's case, he was disorientated by the dogfight and his gyrocompass was thrown out of true. He either didn't realise this or messed up navigating by the magnetic compass and then made the all-too-common error of making the world he could see outside his cockpit fit his existing idea of where he thought he was and which direction he was going. So he mistook the Bristol Channel for the English Channel and flew north, landing at a training airfield in South Wales which he thought would be a Luftwaffe field in northern France.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
Aerial navigation during WW2, particularly in the Pacific theater, seems like a nightmare that's rarely talked about. At least over Europe, you'd have something below you to either orient yourself or parachute to. But having nothing but a map and compass, with open ocean in all directions seems like a horrifying place to get lost. I'm wondering how search and rescue operations were handled by either side there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
In Europe, the Brits flew a lot at night, while everybody operated under blackout conditions. So if the calculated attrition of the bomber stream didn't get you, there was always the chance that a pilot would just get lost and stumble into a flak concentration alone. That, or just crash while landing
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 00:09
|
|
|
the yeti posted:Oh sure, like I didn’t intend to sound like not knowing your location seemed implausible or anything, I just wasn’t sure where the errors stack up Ahh, yeah it's mostly a function of not knowing your velocity with actual precision. I don't think WW2 aircraft had accumulators in them to integrate the indicated airspeed over time, so your only real option is to try and fly a constant heading and speed while your stop watch runs, and then plot the bearing. But of course your speed is constantly varying (and even if you had that accumulator your airspeed isn't your true speed), meaning your position error is growing exponentially the longer you fly even if you don't make any blunders in your navigation calculations. As I understand it the state of the art for navigation calculations was a gyrocompass, ruler, chart, and an E-6B which at least makes it easier to do a wind correction, but that relies on the quality of your wind forecasts, which in the middle of the Pacific I imagine is... poor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 00:15
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Ahh, yeah it's mostly a function of not knowing your velocity with actual precision. I don't think WW2 aircraft had accumulators in them to integrate the indicated airspeed over time, so your only real option is to try and fly a constant heading and speed while your stop watch runs, and then plot the bearing. But of course your speed is constantly varying (and even if you had that accumulator your airspeed isn't your true speed), meaning your position error is growing exponentially the longer you fly even if you don't make any blunders in your navigation calculations. This is why bigger airplanes of the time had a navigator on board; It wasn’t completely blind dead-reckoning. The navigator would routinely use an octant or sextant to update the predicted location with observed fixes. This would then allow them to refine their wind forecasts, and a good navigator could actually be quite good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
On the subject of locating, this question stretches back into pre-modern times: outside of the context of defending or assaulting a defined point like a city, how did military forces hundreds or thousands of years ago find each other? All too often I'll read about a battle that took place on some plain, or the defense of some mountain pass, or even some conflict in a forest. Did historic armies just constantly send out scouting parties, or did all of this just happen by random chance? How did rulers know where their soldiers were if they weren't marching alongside them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
They were definitely sending out scouting parties all the time (if like, probably not in all possible directions at all times).
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 01:02
|
|