|
Hello new thread! Just catching up now, and I've got a few replies. Rodrigo Diaz posted:I'm going to speak only for the high-late middle ages about 1000-1500, to make things easier, since I get the impression that during other periods things are different. Regarding cataphracts, history supplies an unexpected counter in the form of light infantry interspersed among opposing cavalry, for example in the battle of Strasbourg in 357 the Alamanni routed the Roman cataphracts with this strategy. Although I'm not sure if the historian who recorded this, Ammianus, was an eyewitness. According to his account the infantry hid amidst high grass and other ground cover to attack the bellies and legs of the Roman cavalry. Presumably for this strategy to work the Alamanni horse must have met the Roman's from a standstill, otherwise they would have separated from the infantry. Koramei posted:Whoah can someone elaborate on this? Someone else already brought up the Dahomey Amazons, so I'll just share a good article on them: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/2011/09/dahomeys-women-warriors  The Dahomey women believed that by fighting they symbolically (literally? v0v) became male. Which is sort of weird because they were also married to the Chief, but whatever. I'm not familiar with Keegan or his argument. And the claim that "warfare," including logistics and economic supports, is a particularly male activity, seems hardly supportable. However combat itself, generally, does appear dominated by males, even among people like the aboriginal Australians completely isolated from Eurasian culture. That exceptions exist doesn't necessarily disprove that fighting war is a particularly masculine activity.
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Bah. GURPS 3e sourcebooks are cleary the best historical texts you can get. Japanese castles look indefensible to western eyes because they weren't designed to handle the threats western minds expect, at least until the 17th century. There was no real tradition of siege warfare at the beginning of the Sengoku Jidai, and most castles were wooden palisades which could either be burned out or taken by a large rush of infantry. Even so taking such castles was a serious challenge without large cannons or catapult, and fortifications were widespread, relying on inaccessible terrain for defense. The kind of massive sprawling fortresses which are today associated with Japan only developed towards the end of the 16th century, after the arrival of Arquebuses. These castles were not designed to resist cannonballs or large hurled stones, but massed musket volleys, fire, mines, and assault by large armies. As to their effectiveness, well, they were effective enough Tokugawa Ieyasu ordered all but one castle in each provence destroyed. They just represented too great a threat to centralized power. Which may also be the reason Japan didn't have a much of a castle building (or sieging) tradition prior to the 16th century.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:As a concept, an arrow is just a miniature throwing spear (which is literally a stick with a sharp bit on the end). Except that isn't what happened. Bows are not obvious at all, and it is entirely possible they were only invented once on earth, subsequently spreading everywhere else through diffusion. Arrow points are unknown in the Americas until 2000 years ago, and probably spread to the continent over the Bering strait from Eurasia. Places like Australia which were very isolated from most of the human population just never figured it out.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:He didn't post it, but he told me where I could find it. Do you not consider archeological evidence documentation? the JJ posted:Clovis points? Aren't those more ~10000 years old? Those are dart points. Rodrigo Diaz posted:
The Bering Strait has occasionally been crossed by prehistoric peoples, as evidence I cite the Yupik languages, related to the languages of the Inuit, which occur on both sides of the strait. They probably were not the first people to cross the strait. Of course as Nenonen points out there was some trade and communication across the Torres strait. Why no technology or crops diffused across it I couldn't say. As far as the origin of bow and arrow in North America goes, it is a contentious topic. Today there isn't one completely accepted answer for the source of bow and arrow technology, but a Eurasian origin is one hypothesis, besides an independent invention. To summarize the evidence, in the Archaic Period dart points in some localities begin gradually shrinking and looking more and more arrow like. These local trends sometimes petered out and existed along side larger dart points. Everything changes between about 0 AD-1000 AD, when darts are replaced completely by arrows In most places, although in Mexico for example the atlatl remained in use until the Spanish conquest. The change is sometimes rapid and occurred in both hunter-gathers and gardening cultures. Some archeologists have identified a generally north-south spread, others contest this. Some identify the shrinking archaic points as experimental darts evolving into arrows, but such examples don't seem closely related to the unquestioned explosion in arrow points in the first millenium AD. To tie this post back to the topic of the thread, some originalists identify the spread of arrow points with the onset of large scale warfare among the farmers of central North America. That is, they say an already extant technology, which was relatively less prominent compared to the older dart, was suddenly propelled into preeminence by its superiority in warfare, explaining why it seems to suddenly appear. But then I ask why would it also suddenly appears among hunter-gatherers? To put myself on a diffusionist limb here, I'm going to predict all arrow points in New Guinea post-date the arrival of the Austronesians, indicating a Eurasian source for the technology in that landmass. Someone with academic database access show me I'm full of poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
Saw a relevant obituary today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...b0e1_story.html quote:Paul Aussaresses, a French army general who in the final years of his life dispassionately revealed the torture techniques he employed during the Algerian war for independence and defended them as appropriate measures in the modern age of terrorism, has died. He was 95. Anybody read his memoir? Sounds like it had good reviews.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
If I had a fuckoff spaceship I definitely wouldn't bother screwing around with tanks and planes and poo poo, not when I could just incinerate anyone who doesn't immediately hand-over the gold/uranium/helium/animes with lasers and kinetic projectiles. Let the savages govern themselves, so long as they accept space-opium as payment for raw materials and Extraterritoriality for Reptillian citizens.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Scandinavia refers to a peninsula? Learn something new every day! 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Ethiopia did, although we don't know much about it. Excavated Axsum era tombs included horses and elaborate harnesses. Cavalry were important across north Africa and the Sahel in the middle ages so the climate must have been amenable for them. On slightly related topic, I was just looking for sources on the colonization of North Africa and was wondering if anyone had recommended reading on colonial military campaigns in the region, or anywhere really. A few thousand modern soldiers conquered empires, often equipped with modern firearms, holding hundreds of thousands of people extending of tens of thousands of square miles. Squalid fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Dec 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Yeah independent campaigns by local officers against the explicit instructions of civil governments were a common feature of European colonialism. When you have operational independence and victories are a prerequisite for career advancement, there's a huge incentive to behave aggressively, even when doing so is technically insubordination. What really interests me is the government history. How the hell do you extend administrative control across territories larger than any European country in only couple decades? It's freaking me out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
Yeah I kindof got the general idea... I just want some of the colonial particulars. That book looks good, I'm going to check it out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:Thanks alot for the podcast, somewhat unrelated i figure, but how was the link of heavy Frankish cavalry was the result of the battle of Tours? Arab sources seldom mention military equipment, also in much of the initial conquests period they needed high mobility, and armored cavalry such as these were pretty much a phenomena only found in Sassanid Persia (the Byzantines had abandoned cataphracts up until the 9th century), plus expensive, especially when you take into account much of the Arab conquests were essentially booty raids and trying to divert internal squabbles into an external thing. I've read later Carolingian armies were centered around a core of mounted infantry, i.e. men that rode to battle but fought on foot. The author Bernard S. Bachrach in his book Early Carolingian Warfare describes the phalanx as the primary formation of the Carolingian army, and quotes a source which says the Franks line stood like a "wall of ice" at the battle of Tours, although I don't have the book now and can't check his sources. FIghting as a phalanx would make sense for the Merovingians and Carolingians, who had a lot of continuity with late Roman tactics and strategy, although besides that they dismounted for combat I haven't read anything detailed on their tactics or equipment. Might be better to ask this in the medieval warfare thread, but anyone know how Carolingian armies were levied and organized? Squalid fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
They'd had a lot of practice during the First Republic. Plausible deniability too
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:How much detail do you want? My copy of Guy Halsall's Warfare in the Barbarian West goes into some, but even he is pretty vague as far as the actual choice of who, exactly, goes or stays. There was a mix of a kind of national service (rather like the Fyrd in England) and mercenaries, as well as personal armies or warbands, to use a term typically applied to earlier periods. I can go into a bit more detail I'd just like to know more of what you're looking for. Or you can pick up Halsall's book from Amazon and read it for yourself. It's well worth the price. As much detail as you're inclined to share? The Merovingian and Carolingian states are a big blank spot of history in my mind. I've picked up a few odds and ends skimming books in the library, for example Bachrach's, but I don't have a coherent picture of how armies and authority functioned during the Dark Ages. Maybe if you could point to a few differences between the Frankish army of 800 AD and a French army in 1200, I think things might make more sense for me. Added Hastall's book to my amazon wishlist, reading its introduction on Google books it seems exactly what I was asking for. Currently my mental picture of Continental Europe between 400 and 1400 looks like this: Romanized Germans fighting like Romans --> Barbarian Horde? --> Medieval noble cavalry and professional mercenaries What's the preferred nomenclature, btw, for the era formerly known as the Dark Ages? Early middle Ages? Alls I know is that name's a faux pas among serious historians today, but I can't for the life of me remember what name they prefer. Squalid fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It would simply have been seized at some point during the Napoleonic wars. It isn't defensible and the colonists would have wanted it and it would have fit in with Britain's periphery strategy when fighting wars with Continental powers. Assuming there still are Napoleonic Wars in this universe. Not necessarily inevitable if Britain quashes the revolt before French involvement.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The US Navy made extensive use of river monitors converted from large landing craft during the Vietnam War. A few modern navies, most notably the Brazilian Navy, still operate large river gunboats. They're an extremely useful platform for providing fire support in a region with few passable roads but an extensive river system. Brazil's used their freshwater navy too, during the War of the Triple Alliance. It was fought in a very remote region up and down the course of the Paraguay River, which was really the only reliable transportation system. Somebody posted an ebook by a British engineer who served in the Paraguayan navy earlier in this thread. It haas a lot of weird details from the war.  The War in Paraguay posted:The River Paraná was deep everywhere, excepting in one place, opposite the Carayᆠisland, in the northern channel, where there were only twelve feet of water; Lopez had two large canoes filled with stones, and sunk there, in order to stop up that inner channel. In this channel there were two flat-bottomed gunboats, each carrying one 8-inch gun, and also the steamer ‘Gualcguay’, commanded by Lieutenant Lopez, carrying two 12-pounder guns. On the 22nd, this steamer towed out one of the gunboats, and took it half a mile below Itapirú, leaving it close to the shore. The gunboat then opened fire on the. fleet, putting four balls into the Admiral’s vessel. Three ironclads then went and surrounded the gunboat, keeping up an incessant fire oil it. The gunboat, however, made excellent practice, always hitting her mark, and killing and wounding a few men. At last the ironclads came within 100 yards of her, and her crew then jumped out and went into the woods, leaving their boat, which was aground. The Brazilians now sent three boats to fetch the gunboat; but, just as they reached her, 100 infantry, who were hidden and parapeted in the woods, fired on them and knocked over half of the boats’ crews, when the remainder made off as fast as they could. The ironclads continued their fire, and at last blew up the gunboat’s powder-magazine, after which they retired. The Paraguayan gun was not injured, and was recovered out of the water; the boat itself was rendered useless.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:I know nothing about Central America, but I do know that a fortress/citystate in my home state was never taken until the Spanish prolonged a cannon up the side of the mesa it was built on, and recapitulated the result of the early Italian Wars in a single engagement. It's not actually in that article though, which is a shame, but there are pictures of Acoma. A perfect strong place--until gunpowder artillery. (They have since built a bridge into it. Living on top of one of the world's greatest strong places is fine, but being able to drive to the Albertson's for some orange juice is better.) Apparently pre-colombian mexico was full of fortifications, unfortunately all I know on the topic I learned from one presentation in which an archeologist used satellite imagery and topologic maps to reconstruct ancient state boundaries based on the position of defensive structures their and use over time. Because this anecdote is rather boring here's a couple pictures of the Peruvian fortress of Kuelap, built in the 9th century AD:   edit: This post got me curious about accounts of the Spanish conquest, which led me to "The Broken Spears: The Aztec account of the Conquest of Mexico." I was just skimming the introduction which included some cool quotes regarding, the ah, Spanish tactics. Upon encountering an Aztec religious festival: quote:They ran in amongst the dancers, forcing their way to the place where the drums were played. They attacked the man who was playing and cut off his arms. Then they cut off his head, and it rolled across the floor. Squalid fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Probably, I imagine all the surrounding land would have been under intensive cultivation back when it was inhabited. The fortress was abandoned during the Spanish conquest. Per wikipedia the ruins extend 600 meters in length and 110 meters in width, and sit 3000 meters above sea level. To put that in perspective Denver Colorado is only 1,600 m above sea level. Edit: Another quote from Aztec witnesses of the conquest quote:The “stags” came forward, carrying the soldiers on their backs. The soldiers were wearing cotton armor. They bore their leather shields and their iron spears in their hands, but their swords hung down from the necks of the “stags.” Squalid fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
He was studying for his Masters and gave the presentation for an intro to ArcGIS class, not something that was published, sorry. He cited other more professional authors though so I'm sure we could dig up some material. This is why I instantly tried to change the subject after bringing it up  Sadly I think the Meso-American history thread is dead so we can't ask there. Here's Where I got the contemporary quotes from Mexicans on the Spanish conquest, going to bed now, but Ill see if I can find something tomorrow.I should clarify, the "fortifications," in this presentation weren't very impressive and were little more than watchtowers or villages; that said I definitely remember reading somewhere about the use of fortified positions in pre-columbian mexico. Blah Squalid fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Glorgnole posted:Who was the archaeologist and where can I read more about the state boundaries of pre-columbian civilizations? This is really interesting to me right now for some reason. Unfortunately I didn't keep on notes on the presentation, and can't find any details searching online. So to make it up to you, here's a a few pictures of the "monumental fortress and ceremonial center" La Quemada, located in the central Mexican region of Zacatecas.  Located along a trade route between Mesoamerica and the more arid regions of northern Mexico, La Quemada was inhabited from 6th century to the 13th, although some resources use an end date of the 10th century.  La Quemada was built in several stages, with oldest being ceremonial or simply practical. However in the 9th century the design becomes increasingly defensive, with 800 meters of wall built 4 meters high and 3 meters thick, and two of three staircases traversing the stone terraces are removed.  At the site there is evidence of repeated fires and an enormous number of human remains, many in ritual contexts but also scattered about at just about every excavation. The name means "The burnt" in Spanish, and it has been theorized La Quemada was abandoned in the aftermath of a catastrophic defeat and sack, or several successive sacks.  Just exactly who lived here their relation to neighboring civilizations is uncertain. They left no records of their own, although the city has been identified with locations in Aztec myths.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
maev posted:Debate and discussion tends to happen better outside of Debate and Discussion, minus the shouty marxist angst. Keep talking trash and I'll deliver all the angst you can handle mother fucker lf for lyfe bitch Its amazing the chauvinism this forum generates, every subforum thinks itself better than every other. On the subject of obsidian and technological development, can we rule out randomness as the cause of this variation between regions? Especially when we are talking about a single technology, like the wheelbarrow, there's no reason to assume it couldn't have developed in any particular place possessing the necessary precursors. Archeologists studying material cultures often use the assumption that culture spreads through a process of darwinian selection. It is not a perfect analogy, but it is useful. Now if everyone can forgive me for a moment, I'm going to indulge in a little theoretical speculation, well beyond my qualifications. The Columbian exchange wasn't the first case in which destructive invaders displaced the inhabitants of the Americas. In the Great American Interchange, which occurred after Panama rose from the sea and united North and South America, the inhabitants of North America proved far more successful than their South American counterparts, many of whom were driven to extinction. One theory for this asymmetrical colonization is that the Neartic fauna were the product of a larger, more competitive, evolutionary system, including North America, Eurasia, and North Africa. Larger populations generally produce a larger number of genetic mutations than equivalent smaller populations. If that is the case, can we expect a similar difference in the production of cultural innovations, assuming they propagate in a darwinian fashion, between large and small human populations? This idea has been floating around my head for a while, but I haven't put it together before. Does it seem coherent or is it just nonsensical rambling? Anybody want citations for my claims?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The assumption that "culture" (nebulous and multifaceted as it is) develops in a darwinian fashion is a gigantic leap of faith. You make some good points. Cultural evolution isn't the same as biologic evolution. The assumption used by many archeologists, for example Julian Steward, is that cultural traits are adaptations, and propagate through natural selection. Here is a not-so-brief summary of Darwin's theories as used in anthropology and archeology. That there is a difference in the rate of change is not disputed, but it is not necessarily important. I disagree with what you have said on evolution. the environment does select adaptations, but it must have choices to select from. If each individual is born with the same number of mutations, Larger populations will produce more mutations than smaller ones. This is the difference I referenced. This doesn't mean large populations evolve faster than smaller ones, in fact the opposite is more often true, thanks to forces like genetic drift and more intense selective pressure. However I'm not sure the rate of evolution the most important factor in this case. Mesoamerica and South America did have large populations. They never exceed the population of Europe and Asia combined, however. This post is getting off topic, so I'll share some curious weapons and armor from around the world  Above from Kiribati, the tradition weapon is a long sharks-tooth "sword." The armor is made of coconut fiber.  Koryak warrior from Siberia. The armor would have been used in small scale feuds. Probably not so useful outside of ranged combat.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
A Spanish guy tried to convince me Pearl Harbor was an inside job once, I just thought he was eccentric but maybe the idea is more widespread in Spanish language media than in the anglosphere? 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Azran posted:Then Felipe Pigna comes along and says "You guys do realize how expensive oil was in Buenos Aires, right? Why wouldn't they use water." I do. Gimme the reading list. Gimme! Gimme! Spanish language resources are okay, I need to practice anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 22:07
|
|
I can't recommend that guy enough for general Argentinian history, if any of you have any interest.
|
For anyone interested in either magic or modern warfare on the periphery, I recommend The Coconut Revolution, a documentary about the separatist rebels who took power on Bougainville. Bougainville is a Pacific island under the administration of Papua New Guinea, and in the 1990s the islanders fought against the central government, motivated by opposition to gold mining by foreign corporations. It's all on youtube and only 50 minutes long, so definitely worth a watch. The people in the film are really clever, hard working and resourceful. They are also completely convinced that their herbs can cure AIDS, and their charms can make them bullet proof. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDpvxQe_Jhg The film takes its name from the islanders resort to coconut oil after Papua blockaded the island and cut off all petroleum imports.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Are you trying to provoke an argument or what? It's a necessary topic to go over but you opened that in pretty much the worst way you possibly could have. I had the impression you supported inserting politics into history, even to the point of dismissing evidence contrary to the desired political objective. Certainly, the political motive behind AdmiralSmeggins statements are transparent enough. Oh if you're still interested in Japanese perspectives on world war ii, you might like this article on the occupation of Japan: http://www.japanfocus.org/-Mark-McLelland/3827 It's not strictly military history, in fact its about the sexual politics of post war Japan. But still it provides an interesting window into the agenda of Japanese leaders under the occupation. quote:as we will see, sexuality continued to be highly regulated and supervised, albeit in different ways and with different goals in mind. The Japanese authorities fully expected that the incoming Americans would behave in the same rapacious manner as had their own forces when they advanced across China and were determined to put in place measures to protect the purity of Japanese women. The US administration, on the other hand, rather than viewing their troops as sexual predators, tended to see these young men as “clean, innocent and vulnerable” and in danger of “having their morals corrupted and their health destroyed” by “shameless Japanese women.”3 The policies that the Allies enacted were intended to protect their own troops’ physical wellbeing, with scant regard paid to their effects on Japanese women and society.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Depends on the time period, I guess. I would be surprised if there was never a case anywhere in the world where an obviously unskilled ruler was put aside for or by a more skilled sibling. But the thing is that monarchy is founded on tradition and legitimacy, and any loving around with the laws of succession is a major problem with that. At some point you have to explain why this guy (or gal) is allowed to rule the country. It's easy when that guy commands the biggest loving army in the realm, because if you don't do what he says he comes and fucks your poo poo up. But you can't run a country on the basis forever. At some point you have to have people follow your orders without having to put a soldier next to them. Being able to point to ten generations of rulers handing over the realm to their firstborn sons does that quite well ("We always did it that way"), even if the first of them achieved his exalted position by having the biggest loving army in the realm. That's a major obstacle to just saying "Actually my firstborn is kinda dumb, guess my second born will inherit, no big deal right?" There's a lot of variation in tradition around the world, and in many places the monarch often had some latitude in determining succession. In Burma succession was supposed to pass to the first male offspring of the Chief Queen. The King could sometimes promote or demote women into that position, and thereby control his successor. The King is still constrained to choose from his offspring, but considering that Burmese Kings could have hundreds of wives and concubines, there could be a lot of candidates. Of course during succession this also often resulted in fratricidal bloodbaths in which claimants (or their mothers) attempted to exterminate all the dozens of half-brothers with competing claims. I think Korean Kings could, at least during a few dynasties, choose their heirs. It also led to occasional fratricide, like when the future King Taejong slaughtered three of his brothers and forced another to abdicate.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:There's a whole sub-field of history that basically just compares dictatorships and one of the most fascinating things about it is looking at what, exactly, the specific mechanisms for control were. In all of them the system is going to get its hooks in you one way or the other, but the specific way that it's done varies an incredible amount. It really is neat to look at what specific mixture of carrot and stick, and via what means of application, was used to get similar results in systems that we intuitively want to lump together but which are extremely varied. Can you recommend any books on the subject? It's a topic I've been interested in for a while but I can never find anything in depth.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Here are some half sketched out thoughts on the matter that I have. I'm straight up just copy/pasting from a thinking document that I've got set up for a intro lecture to an intro course that I'm half-way through writing, which is why I was touchy about all that in the first place. I'm still feeling out around the edges of my own thinking on it, so forgive me if it's rough. That said: I know you were trying to kill this topic, but as someone with a bit of training in paleontology I think I should mention these arguments apply equally well to that field. The existence of enormous amounts of uncertainty, and some level of personal interpretation by researchers, is an inescapable part of natural history. There is very much about the past we do not know, and probably will not ever know for certain, but that does not preclude us from using the scientific method to answer specific questions, so long as we are aware of and acknowledge the limitations. I'm not a trained historian, but when I read papers like this: http://econ.sciences-po.fr/sites/default/files/file/elise/AEJApp-2007-0034_manuscript.pdf which seem to me to apply the scientific method to answer historical questions like the value of past investments, I'm confused by what you mean about historical methodologies. Creating new historical data is challenging, but we can still create testable hypotheses no? If we read an account of a city being sacked in such and such a year, we can hypothesize that the city was sacked in that year. The hypothesis can be tested by looking for other accounts that confirm the first account, or dig under the city for dateable layers of ash. That to me is scientific history. Philosophy of science is not my forte, and I may have biases which confuse your point in my mind. I admit i've assumed [i]a priori[i] that paleontology is a science, and I think most paleontologists would agree. I also may conceive history differently from you, for in my mind I don't differentiate archeology from archival research, they are just different lines of evidence on the same subject. However the fact that all the fossils we will ever have from the Cretaceous are already buried somewhere, and that we will never have any more, seems perfectly analogous to the problems you have identified in historical research, specifically that all the evidence of Hitler's not blackness and not gayness has already been created.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Regardless of whether the use of composite bows was limited by humidity, its clear the Mongols didn't FEEL limited by their bows. It's the kind of thing I'd expect the Khans to account for when planning campaigns, but they went right ahead and invaded notably wet and humid places like Burma, Java, Yunnan, etc. Today Seoul, South Korea has humidity of 82% for example. Really I don't see why we have to reach for such theories to explain the limits of the Mongol empire. The campaigns 1230 campaign against Hungary played out very much like the expeditions to Burma and Java and other places on the Mongol periphery. Initial victories in the field shortly culminating in unceremonious withdrawals despite the Mongol advantage, never again to return in force. Places like Hungary and Burma were just to far, and the political ties within the Empire too weak, to sustain expansion.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Are there any remnants left of the massive network of Trenches from WWI left, or were they all filled in? Earthworks are some of the most enduring of all human artifacts, and often persist thousands of years. If I can imagine any drudgery worse than digging ditches, its filling them back in.  Maiden castle in Dorset England, built first in 650 BC, expanded in 450. Many of the hills in Scotland and England are still dotted with earthen ramparts built during the bronze or iron age. This castle was abandoned after the Roman conquest. I was once told by a professor that in Scotland almost all of these sites have layers of ash and arrowheads whose dates match those of Roman expeditions north of Hadrian's Wall.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Is that depression in the inbred, depression in those studying it or both? It's this
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
esn2500 posted:Great answer, thanks; the Sinjar comparison definitely puts perspective on things. I suppose it would be difficult then to say exactly how much more prevalent sieges became during the Medieval period. Well there's actually a lot to be said, but the question needs to be a little more specific, warfare varied a lot during the ancient era over time and around the world. Archaeology has a lot to say about sieges just because fortifications are rather enduring structures, so there's a lot of evidence. However the answer to the question will be very different if you focus on say, classical antiquity in the Mediterranean world, Iron Age Britain, or proto-Khmer rice farmers on the Khorat plateau. On that subject I recently had the luck to visit Angkor Wat in Cambodia, the most famous temple of the Khmer civilization, but I found the walls and defense of neighboring Angkor Thom, the ancient capital of the Khmers, more interesting than that better known temple's spires.  Here's one of the four huge gates, large enough for an elephant and rider to easily pass beneath. The wall is eight meters tall, and forms a square three by three kilometers wide. The city also has an absurd moat surrounding it on all sides, here's view of the causeway approaching the gate:  For reference, each of those little pyramid shapes along the top of the causeway is a man sized statue of a deva or assura, or gods and demons. There's 54 on either side, the scale is MASSIVE. The causeway is 100 meters long. Anybody besieging the city would struggle just to get a bow-shot off at a defender, let alone assault the walls, which are made of earth faced with sandstone. However despite their grandeur many aspects of the wall seem simple, even naive. They just aren't very defensible, there are no towers, not even above the gates. Their are no crenelations that I could see along the top. The causeway and its statues make for an awe inspiring approach, but there's no draw bridge, or anyway to close the approach. There is an impression that the defenses are designed as as much to awe as to defend the city. Still defense must have been on the architect's mind. The Chams had sacked Angkor Thom only a few years before construction of the gates. In 1178 they sailed a fleet up the Mekong and surprised the Khmers. They had several relief depicting the invasion at one of the temples inside.  The men in flower shaped hats/helmets wielding spears are the Chams. Those guys swimming with the fishes? Dead Khmers. The Cham victory would be short lived however. Jayavarman VII, who would go on to rebuild much of the city including the gates, drove them off in 1181, and went on the conquer all of Champa. This relief is quite unusual. The vast majority of reliefs at Angkor Wat and on the surrounding temples is religious, and where the Khmer army does appear elsewhere, as at Angkor Wat, it is depicted as triumphant. Here though they memorialized what their greatest defeat, their Cannae, in all its horror, perhaps to emphasize their ultimate triumph. I'm struck by the umbrellas, is that really necessary on a military voyage? Or is there some defensive function? Not that I blame them for wanting a little sun protection, I came away with a nasty burn across my neck and nose. Squalid fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
The walls are thick, the sandstone hard and the drop shear. From inside its an easy scramble up the slope around figs and weedy shrubs, and in the silted up section of moat below I saw a faun dash for cover as I topped the ruin. There was some trace of what might have been a parapet, but what remained was only a few inches higher than the portion I was standing on. Notably the gate is completely inaccessibly from above, being topped with a gigantic head. The head is hollow, and full of bats. There are two small rooms inside the gate on either side, both quite plain. Presumably store rooms, with no clear defensive function. I guess a guard could have lived in them but they had no windows and, didn't seem very pleasant. Although it has survived 900 years it doesn't seem very sturdy, the gate is corbelled instead of possessing a true arch. The design is very similar to that at the Thai town of Phi Mai, just scaled up and with a bit more flair. They both had the mysterious side rooms inside the gate, although at Phi Mai you have to face indignant roosters eyeing you warily perched where the roof should be, the modern town is built right up against the ruins and I rather awkwardly found myself walking through peoples back yard to check out the remains. The moat at first clearly seems like a defensive feature, but we know for sure it had potent symbolic meaning. It represents the sea of milk which surrounds Mount Meru and was churned by the devas and assuras to produce the nectar of immortality. In fact the entire city, like most monumental Khmer architecture, is laid out in the form of a Mandela, and taken as a whole symbolizes the universe. More practically, wet paddy rice agriculture required enormous reservoirs in this dry region. Today the moat is still used as a reservoir by local people, and I assume the same was true at the peak of the Khmer empire. During the height of the empire there were enormous reservoirs in the area. There's also the fact that many of the most impressive temples in the area are built far outside the defensive perimeter, Angkor Wat for example. Although it has its own moat and walls, the walls aren't impressive. If defense was really a priority I wouldn't expect there to be so much sprawl. There were several other fortified towns in the region too, although like Phimai their walls were more like 3-4 meters. The scale of the place is just unbelievable. There were literally thousands of tourists crawling over the place, and yet I frequently found myself alone, simply wondering between sunken foundations and green stagnant reflecting pools. There was a small village beside the remains of Jayavarman VII's palace, where venders hawked Coca Cola and green mangoes. Here's an illustration that gives a good idea of the size:  The barays are huge reservoirs. edit: the picture gives an idea of the scale of the walls and moat but doesn't show the city itself for some reason. Most of the space inside Angkor Thom would have been full of structures of some sort. Squalid fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Yeah, the actual footprint of Angkor is pretty huge. There is definitely some truth to this, and as far as I know no enemy ever sacked the city after the defeat of the Chams. In the 16th century The Khmer capital was eventually relocated to a more defensible location further away from the ascendant Thai Kingdom in the west, which would ultimately reduce Cambodia to a client Kingdom before handing the country over to the French. That article is somewhat misleading I think, the area was less "suburban" and more densely scattered villages, many of which were also fortified. Although there weren't that many foreign threats to the city during its heyday, Khmer politics could be extremely fractious, and there are several records of successional disputes between royal claimants. I remember someone recently asked if any region had as divided and fractured a political history as Europe, and oh man does South-East Asia fit the bill. The place has been a cluster-gently caress held together by tenuous feudal hierarchies and tribal animosity since the historical record began. Ithle01 posted:I don't know much about Cambodian history or Angkor Thom, but is it possible that they supplemented the structure with wood or other decomposable material that would've been lost? If that's the case then the city might seem a lot less defensible now than it was when it was fully inhabited. The only thing I can recall about South East Asian history is a 100-level college class wherein the professor said not much was known because the jungle tended to reclaim the predominantly wooden cities. That was a long time ago so I might just be misremembering things, but it would make sense that the city doesn't seem well defended if you look at only the parts that are made of stone. Yeah they definitely did that. If you don't mind me posting this map again: You can imagine the entire space inside the Angkor Thom square was full of wooden structures, with more around every temple labeled on the map. In Thailand and Cambodia monumental architecture gradually fell out of style due to changes in taste and religion, which is one reason for the ruin of many of these structures, today' temples are made of wood. Whether the wall was supplemented with wood? I dunno. The place is thick with foundations from long decayed wooden buildings, but the walls themselves present no obvious signs of wooden additions. I didn't mean to suggest the city wasn't well defended. The walls are huge, the moat 100 meters wide. However the defenses seem extremely passive. The gates are impressive yes, but the giant stone heads are thin and fragile looking, and stand in the way of defenders. I suspect they weren't expected to withstand European style assaults, I suspect because there wasn't much siege engineering expertise at the time. In what today is modern Thailand, Laos, Burma, and Cambodia, cities weren't usually built on strategic locations or major trade routes, the way they were in Europe and the Middle East. The location of capitals was often chosen by astrologers, and frequently moved around contingent on immediate strategic needs or as a convenient excuse to celebrate the current monarch. the JJ posted:When I was about 10 I went to Angkor, I remember our guide* pointing out all the different nationalities on the reliefs. "And here are the Chinese mercenaries. You can tell because their eyes are tilted." I dunno if that's like, the accepted interpretation but it amused me. I think the considerations taken for elephants is a pretty fun aspect of a lot of fortifications in that area. I remember some Rajput forts were built with gates placed at hard corners so that elephants wouldn't be able to back up to get a running start on the gate. Also four inch spikes studded all over the gate at elephant forehead level. Now some of those forts were really up front about killing people trying to get in. Yeah I saw some reliefs depicting Chinese merchants on the Bayoun temple. There are actually some first hand accounts of the city from the Chinese diplomat Zhou Daguan, who served the Yuan dynasty: [quote=" Zhou Daguan"] Soldiers also move about unclothed and barefoot. In the right hand is carried a lance, in the left a shield. They have no bows, no arrows, no slings, no missiles, no breastplates, no helmets. I have heard it said that in war with the Siamese universal military service was required. Generally speaking, these people have neither discipline nor strategy [/quote Everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt of course, for example there were several reliefs at Angkor Wat depicting bows and arrows.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I can't give you a solid recommendation, but I will say that you are limiting yourself terribly by demanding online access. Most good historical literature is only ever published on physical media. almost any published work can be accessed instantly online; you just need to know the right place to look... of course if you have any scruples regarding file-sharing, not all sources will be equally useful
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
The Mexican army deployed lancers in the Mexican-American War to good effect. Come to think of it lancers were used in every Latin American conflict I've studied. They were the principle arm of the Dominican Army in their wars against Haiti, and also used in the Paraguayan War by both sides. Of course when your supply lines a joke and you can't expect even to have ammunition, it makes sense to keep a lance, regardless of it's relative effectiveness compared to a pistol
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Didn't it ever occur to them to just, you know, stay out? In much of Latin America WWI and WWII are remembered as a kind of golden age of prosperity and unrivaled growth. Turns out wars can be extremely lucrative, provided they're fought by someone else!
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:The Vikings were probably better nourished than people in more dense populations, which would have allowed them to get bigger? I dunno. Both of those sides would have been way better nourished than early modern people though; I saw Eugene of Savoy's buff coat in a museum in Vienna and I'm about his height but my shoulders are like, a quarter again as broad. If there was a difference in exposure to illness and disease it could have played a part too, incidence of childhood illness has a big impact on adult height. It's one reason Europeans have surpassed Americans in stature, their commie health care breeds bigger bodies. This whole discussion is rather silly and poorly supported anyway edit: I went ahead and looked up estimates of typical heights for Vikings and non-vikings, summarized in this source: http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6645917.pdf 10-11th C Sweden 176.0 cm 9-11th C Iceland 172.3 cm 12th C Norway 170.2 12th C Britain 168.4 13th C Sweden 174.3 Curious if there's actually evidence vikings were especially burly, in addition to being a few cm taller than the average Brit. Probably safe to assume not. Squalid fucked around with this message at 00:15 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:haha jesus you're ornery about this. my main sources are (as i've been perfectly open about) the sagas and the way they portray scandinavian society of the time, supplemented by history books, admittedly mostly on the accessible end of the scale You haven't supported your thesis very well, I for one am not at all sure that 10th century Norwegians were any less settled than Irish, Scots or slavs in the same period, nor that 10th century Danes were especially fit. The Varangian Guard also included Anglo-Saxons you know.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
Hypha posted:This is not my area but a very quick literature search suggests that there is a lot of interest in this question from a chronic disease perspective. Namely, that our lifestyles do not match our genome, which leads to pathology. In biology, the term evolution can be used correctly to describe any change in the traits of a population, including behavioral and cultural transitions. For example there are many studies of cultural evolution among songbirds. In some species tunes change as often as top singles on a pop chart.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 06:33
|
|