|
You mention raiding villages? Were wholesale atrocities on the opposing serfs commonplace earlier in the 100 years war like what happened later in the 30 years war. I assume having a roving army in your countryside is at the very least bad for the food supply of the average peasant but did it also result in every male of age being strung up in a tree? To what extent was medieval war "total"?
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
Railtus posted:Guys, I have never heard of cat burning or fox tossing until people brought it up in this thread. So is there any historical evidence of diseased animals being launched into besieged towns to real effect?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I bet it was pretty terrifying if you were the guy picked to light the fuse. Even if you were the king.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I disagree, it was a foreign power conquering the capital. More importantly, a foreign culture. I've made this example before in the Antiquity thread I think, but imagine if the USSR had conquered the US. Would giving the soviet leader title of POTUS make sense? I would argue not, though they might have done so for propaganda reasons. Or imagine if the US would occupy large territories in the Middle East and declare the president as the Caliph. I am of the opinion you need a certain cultural claim within the culture you are usurping for the strongest claim. The Brits are perfectly happy being lorded over by Germans.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:A soldier with PTSD bad enough to affect his daily life probably would not fare well in battles were one on one combat occurred. WWI made it so you could theoretically be the worst soldier ever, never fire a shot, and still endure endless amounts of torturous experiences and get massively hosed up. Probably the most famous case of PTSD would be Audie Murphy who clearly fared quite well during battles and almost shut down completely post-war.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2013 09:12
|
|