|
Centurium posted:
This is from a few pages back, but what would actually happen at the end of a charge, once you'd ridden (or run, if infantry) all the way across the battlefield and got close to the other guys? If they chicken out and break, then you get to chase them down - fine. But if they hold, do you just keep going helter skelter and run into them for a body check? Or do you have to slow down in the last ten metres? Would you have even been running? I'm imagining a wind sprint before some protracted hand-to-hand fighting wouldn't do you any favours.
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:If you try plow your horse into a bunch of dudes who aren't giving, two things happen. a travelling HEGEL posted:This is correct! Except as far as I know, #2 hardly ever happened. (Which is actually good for all concerned: google racetrack accidents for an image of what would happen if this were a thing.) There is no such thing as "shock" in the sense of a horse literally smashing into a dude like a big furry missile. It will refuse at the last minute, no matter how well trained it is--especially if the dude has a pike or something and is aiming the point at the horse's face. Accounts of "shock" are, in my opinion, either accounts of the foot breaking due to the psychological impact of cavalry coming right the gently caress at them, or describe a situation which is not the norm (the horse is dead already but still moving forward, it's happening on a bridge so everyone is crammed into a tiny space, etc). See, this is what I was thinking and was wondering why infantry would ever run from cavalry, unless horribly, horribly outnumbered. I was picturing some early modern General Melchett sending wave after wave of cavalry over the comically large piles of dead horses, because after 18 charges, it'd be the last thing they'd expect. The Wikipedia article on Cataphracts talks about the Parthians pummelling the Romans with arrows from horse archers so the Romans would loosen their formations and therefore be more vulnerable to a charge from the cataphracts themselves. So the lesson here, I guess, is that you want to be able to break out the back of the infantry formation if you're going to just keep charging. What about infantry charges (pre-guns)? Would you be running to get into hand-to-hand, or would it be more a brisk walk?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Sauer posted:I was wondering if any of you know of a good book in english about Japanese kamikaze pilots in WWII? Preferably something written by one (obviously someone who never actually had the chance to carry out his mission) or at least using good sources. I've read a lot about the use of kamikazes, the motivation from a political standpoint, tactics, training and so forth but I know almost nothing about the men themselves and how they felt about their mission. I briefly flicked through a book several years ago while doing research about Mishima for an art project - I think it was "Kamikaze Diaries - Reflections of Japanese Student Soldiers" by Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney. There's something strangely fatalistic with the pilots, if I recall correctly. I remember one pilot who believed Japan had to lose the war in order to become a better nation and that his death was a necessary step towards that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Argas posted:Well, Japan was never going to really win against America. This didn't mean they didn't try but its leaders knew how slim a chance it was. More practically, they wanted the war to be so costly that the Americans would settle for a conditional surrender, hopefully one that allowed Japan to retain some of its conquests. I'm not sure how much the common soldier would be aware of this though. The thing that struck me at the time was not whether the pilot thought they could or couldn't win - he just believed losing would be the best for the nation. I recall a lot of the pilots being aware of the futility of what they were doing but still following through anyway. You might talk about "duty" or something here, but I'd say the mood was closer to nihilistic. Tomn posted:Funnily enough, he may not necessarily have been wrong - the bit about the better nation, that is, not his own death. Unfortunately, it was something read in passing - I was curious about Japanese death poems and I think a number of the pilots (both kamikaze and oka) wrote them. That said, I feel it was probably along the lines of burning away the nationalistic element of the society and allowing a more humble Japan to face the future. If that is the book I'm thinking of, me from 8 years ago recommends it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
What is history's opinion on Montgomery? I was reading up about von Thoma and his surrender at El Alamein after thinking about this photo:  Apparently, von Thoma was well regarded by Churchill - Montgomery less so. Wikipedia posted:
Wikipedia also has this pretty cool photo:  That conversation could have been... interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago Speaking of Gallipoli... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmMWCHHKfX0
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Okay, thanks to the general chat about deaf 30YW mercenaries in taverns, I was reading the Wikipedia article about the 80 Years War. It says at the siege of Steenwijk that 50 artillery pieces dropped 29,000 shots on the fortress and that at the siege of Coevorden, the fortress was bombarded for 6 weeks. Is this fairly typical of sieges at the time? The article indicates that Maurice of Nassau had a larger than usual train of artillery. What would "constant bombardment" have consisted of at that time? Also, here's Maurice rollin (front row left, with the creepy, starey horse)':  The island of Mauritius was named after him. If anyone knows a bit more about the dude and his army reforms, I'd love to hear about it. I know I can read Wikipedia, but opinionated views of history are always fun! e: Wikipedia and the 80 YW led me to this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balthasar_G%C3%A9rard who assassinated William the Silent. If there isn't an awesome action film in this, then I don't know. Wikipedia posted:As William the Silent climbed the stairs to the second floor, he was spoken to by the Welsh captain, Roger Williams, who knelt before him. William put his hand on the bowed head of the old captain, at which moment Gérard jumped out of a dark corner. He drew his weapon and fired three shots at the stadtholder. William the Silent collapsed. His sister knelt beside him, but it was too late. Mon Dieu, ayez pitié de moi et de mon pauvre peuple (My God, have mercy on me and on my poor people) were reportedly William's last words. I can't help but picture Jason Stratham in some Transporter-style shenanigans. His trial and execution was pretty brutal, especially the bit with his heart... Elissimpark fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:It would probably have been their wisest move in the entire war. I can't find a definite source on how many times he was shot, but 3 seems to be correct. Three pistols would make sense, but reloading in the middle of an assassination attempt provides a funnier mental picture. Incidentally, this was the apparently the second assassination of a head of government by firearm, though I did see a book on Amazon suggesting it was the first. This dude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stewart,_1st_Earl_of_Moray was the first. I recommend the article if only for the alleged death of Lady Mondegreen. Wrong Earl of Moray, but nice try. e: HEY GAL posted:I'll write about Maurician reforms when I'm not so tired, sorry Elissimpark fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Groda posted:The Silent is such a stupid epithet. Is that a UK thing? The story provided by Wikipedia regards this is pretty cool - and "the Silent" is the best us English speakers could do. Rent-A-Cop posted:Almost certainly. Loading three balls into a smooth bore pistol isn't exactly a recipe for accuracy but it sounds like a drat good way to make sure whoever you shoot from point blank range dies. This story keeps getting more and more  - its starting to sound like a 16th century version of The Jackal. Wonder if Bruce Willis could be talked into a period piece...Can anyone recommend some reading about the 80YW or about William himself?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Things this time is good at: Music, war, architecture. Also, I don't think they're quite to scale. Maybe Maurice and the House of Orange were huge. Any painting of horses moving will always look weird, if painted before Muybridge. HEY GAL posted:
Would the guy working the artillery be likely to be the guy who made it? Or at least, involved with its making? In my head I'm comparing it to the early photographers who would make all their own equipment and mix their own chemicals. Did they have any particular tactics beyond "shoot poo poo at the city and see what happens"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think Lenin is supposed to have remarked that it was a crying shame that Mussolini turned fascist because he'd have made a great communist leader. Fascism seems to attract a lot of people who are just trying to opportunistically seize power, and a lot of people who want to ride on their coat-tails. JaucheCharly posted:Mussolini is super weird. One dives into his biography and writing and you get an impression what strange and tumultous times these must have been. If you don't post the pic where he's barechested on skiiers, I will. A couple of things. Firstly:  Secondly, reading the Italian Fascist Manifesto, many of the points (universal suffrage, minimum wage, 8 hour day, etc) are fairly left wing in scope. Even the points regards the military seem fairly milquetoast (especially with the contemporary layperson's idea of what Fascism was about). Further, the mood of Italian fascism (from the snippets I've read in the past couple of days) seems to be one of hope rather than the reactionary nature that Nazism seems to have had. When did it turn right wing? Or am I missing something here? Or is this what you mean by a Faustian pact - Fascism (in Italy anyway) was not left OR right wing on its own, but only by association? I mean, looking at the Manifesto, if I were living then, before the word "fascism" had any baggage, I'd probably be thinking about voting for Mussolini. I'll qualify the second bit there by noting that my educational background is in fine arts and my entry to this is via the Futurists. I was always puzzled why a fairly avant garde Modern art movement would want to be attached to a right wing political organisation - a lot of Modern artists would have been starting to flirt with communism around this period. Marinetti, the founder of Futurism, wrote: The Futurist Manifesto (1909) posted:We will glorify war—the world’s only hygiene—militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman. The Futurist Manifesto (1909) posted:We will sing of great crowds excited by work, by pleasure, and by riot; we will sing of the multicolored, polyphonic tides of revolution in the modern capitals; we will sing of the vibrant nightly fervor of arsenals and shipyards blazing with violent electric moons; greedy railway stations that devour smoke-plumed serpents; factories hung on clouds by the crooked lines of their smoke; bridges that stride the rivers like giant gymnasts, flashing in the sun with a glitter of knives; adventurous steamers that sniff the horizon; deep-chested locomotives whose wheels paw the tracks like the hooves of enormous steel horses bridled by tubing; and the sleek flight of planes whose propellers chatter in the wind like banners and seem to cheer like an enthusiastic crowd. I have so many questions about this, but have no idea where to begin! Basically: JaucheCharly posted:Mussolini is super weird.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Ah ha! Hahaha. Hahahahahahahaha. Okay, okay, I wasn't thinking too critically when I typed that - point taken. I was just thinking in terms of being on the winning* side. *Individual results may differ. e: Jesus, I completely forgot about Trieste and Cadorna. Elissimpark fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Apr 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
I was going to ask if Italy could have played this out differently, but realised that the real question bugging me is this: why was everyone in the early 20th century seemingly OBSESSED with obtaining territory? The Balkan wars almost read like a slap-fight in this respect. What would Italy have gained from the slivers of Croatia, Slovenia or whatever it was after?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'm vacationing in what used to be known as Jesselton in Sabah, and found a memorial to Australian soldiers there: That's interesting - that's not what I would have expected Australian memorial-wise in Sabah. Australians get caught up with Gallipoli and Kokoda and forget we were doing other stuff at those times as well.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:This is actually a really complex question, surprisingly. Italian fascism attracted some very influential strains of thought in architecture, in particular futurism. I'm not the best person to explain it, but the aesthetic of Italian fascism was by no means just what some random yokel failed painter thought looked cool. Its quite interesting to compare the state of the arts in Germany and Italy at these times. Hitler (a failed painter) was thoroughly against Modern art (i.e. all the cool stuff happening at the time) and in 1937 there were 2 exhibitions - one of Great German Art and the other of Degenerate Art. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_Art_Exhibition Historically, the Degenerate exhibition is the more important of the two. If you are familiar with art history, you'll notice a few big names considered by the regime to be un-German. Crowds at the Degenerate exhibition were much greater than at the Great exhibition. In hindsight, this would have been a blockbuster of a touring exhibition. On the other hand, Mussolini was more open-minded about the Italian avant garde - notably the Futurists, as Disinterested noted. Somebody with more knowledge about Mussolini than me would need to answer why that was the case. Either way, Marinetti was able to convice Mussolini to refuse the Degenerate exhibition from touring Italy - Marinetti was well aware that the Futurists were the kind of artists that Hitler would consider to be "incompetents, cheats and madmen". Marinetti was unable, though, to convince Mussolini to make Futurism the official art movement of Fascism - presumably Mussolini didn't want to piss off the various groups of intellectuals the way Hitler seemed to be quite happily doing in Germany. Ultimately, I believe Mussolini favoured a more conservative artistic style and Marinetti got less and less experimental.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:The Ottomans take the offensive on Gallipoli, to no great effect Not a WWI specific question, but when a military commander (from any period) drew up some plans to smash the other side's poo poo in, how would they factor in possible casualties? How can you reasonably estimate how many of your dudes are going to go down in the fracas? I can't imagine it not being an issue, but can't picture how it would be dealt with, especially with longer term strategic planning.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:This page goes into a little more detail about Napoleonic uniforms than I can properly be spergy about. Huh, that was quite a good read. I like that the shakos had pockets for toiletries and tobacco. Speaking of hats, is there a gradual transition from troops wearing metal helmets to troops wearing fabric hats between, say, 1500 and 1700? If so, would this be related to the increasing role of firearms?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
Ugh, this. Read the Wikipedia bit on Anzac Spirit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzac_spirit As an Australian, I could tell you heaps about the ANZAC LEGEND and MATESHIP and THE FORGING OF OUR NATION, but very little about the actual details of the campaign. I doubt many Australians could.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Hey Gal, could you recommend any reenactment-type resources for DIY period costumes? Like, patterns with measurements. I've had a google but haven't found anything particularly useful. Say, if I wanted to sew myself a pair of GIANT TROUSERS like this guy:  I'm happy to fumble through instructions not in English.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Awesome stuff Yes! That Reconstructing History is fantastic. Now considering exchanging all my modern pants for hose and giant breeches. HEY GAL posted:Hey, if you feel unsure of yourself/hungover/existential despair, swathing yourself in a whole fuckload of silk velvet is the way to go. Word.  
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Cadiz I would have loved to see the initial Spanish reaction to the 1000 drunk Englishmen. "Captain - we've encountered the enemy." "What are they doing?" "They, uh, they seem to be horribly drunk. Horribly." "..." "Uh, what should we do?" "gently caress, put 'em to the sword, I guess." I am now picturing the 17th century as an endless stream of variations on the conversation at the end of Burn After Reading.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:spain did get a really sweet picture out of the whole thing I'm imagining that the only Spaniards are the guys in the foreground - the whole background is just the English royally loving themselves. Fortunately, the English learn their lesson and and have another go in 1702: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_C%C3%A1diz_(1702) Wikipedia posted:The Allies proceeded to take Fort Saint Catherine, before entering the town of Port Saint Mary. Ormonde’s men initially encamped beyond the town, but the mistake was to allow them to return to it.[19] The troops found the town full of unguarded warehouses stuffed full of goods, and the cellars full of wine and brandy, most of which was owned by English and Dutch merchants doing business under Spanish names. The men helped themselves, lost control, and fell to looting, destroying, and plundering, not just the warehouses, but also convents and churches.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i love the dudes on the right, their outfits all match in style but they're different colors and the one in pink and green looks pleasingly melonlike If you look closely, Fernando Girón (dude sitting down) is rocking the exact same outfit but in black. I wonder if that's the style of the day or whether the colorful guys are just sucking up to him. Do you know who any of the other guys are? The guy behind Fernando is a member of the Order of Santiago. This I only know because Velazquez was a member and added the red cross to his own chest in Las Meninas 3 years after finishing the painting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:so's the guy in pink and green I'm really starting to like this painting. Dammit, I'll have to go to the Prado again.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Speaking of personal armour designed to defeat rifle bullets supposedly at 10 paces Oddly enough, I believe that's exactly what they had been planning to do, but escaped hostages blew the lid on their original plan. (BTW - how does a Finn come across something that seems (as an Australian) something of little interest to non-Australians?)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
my dad posted:Not a Finn, but here's a hint: It's an armored tincat suit that can block bullets, was actually used in a firefight, and actually worked. It's the kind of poo poo you can't avoid running into eventually on the internet. Good point. The cultural stuff that goes with Ned Kelly and the iconic status of the armour (I've probably seen 2 or 3 "Such is life" car stickers in 10 minutes of driving today) kinda hides the fact that some dudes in homemade armour getting into a shoot out with the cops is a pretty cool story!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Is the sauna before or after vodka?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Contemporaneous. Finnish vodka is drippings from the interior of a sauna. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:As mentioned, it is a curiosity big enough that people know about it, there's even a movie about Kelly which is more than you can say about Simo Häyhä (but one is supposed to be screened in 2017). Also, I've been to Australia and have read a bit of its history, Ned Kelly is a super star compared to some of the other stuff I know. Like the poisoning of Phar Lap. gently caress, I even have a John Quick shirt, and I'm not even fully sure why John Quick was important! JcDent posted:Yeah, it's not like Ned Kelly is that obscure, compared to Australia in general. Hell, the armor thing cropped up in In Her Magisty's Name LP (and the game itself). (Also, mentioning Donald Bradman could have completed the triad of Australian cultural touchstones.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
Why there isn't a TV series based on Prince Rupert? Whether it would be a serious HBO-style thing, a rollicking sexy comedy or a crazed magical animal anime, I don't know. More seriously, did people in the 30 Years War period compare the quality of the fighting between the various conflicts going on at the time? The little I've read about the ECW gives a vague impression of both sides bumbling around a bit - not that that really matters in the context of the ECW itself because if you win, you win - there's no points for style in war. Can you even make an objective comparison between different conflicts?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
So I'm slowly trawling my way through Europe's Tragedy (just past the Battle of Wittstock) and the thing that has struck me the most is how much it revolves around financing - getting loans, avoiding paying loans, avoiding paying soldiers, avoiding paying subsidies promised, etc. The fact Wallenstein's financier topped himself when Wallenstein was relieved of his command because he knew he wasn't going to be able to pay back any of the loans he had got on Wallenstein's behalf is fascinating. I remembered the introduction from The 120 Days of Sodom: Marquis de Sade posted:The extensive wars wherewith Louis XIV was burdened during his reign, while draining the State’s treasury and exhausting the substance of the people, none the less contained the secret that led to the prosperity of a swarm of those bloodsuckers who are always on the watch for public calamities, which, instead of appeasing, they promote or invent so as, precisely, to be able to profit from them the more advantageously. The end of this so very sublime reign was perhaps one of the periods in the history of the French Empire when one saw the emergence of the greatest number of these mysterious fortunes whose origins are as obscure as the lust and debauchery that accompany them. While there is financing coming in from people with ideological goals, I'm going to assume people were speculating on the war (consider that Tulip Mania hits the Netherlands in 1637), but surely this would be stupidly risky. Would anyone be able to provide a bit of insight in war financing in the period (or any period), or be able to recommend a book dealing specifically with this side of things?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
Slow response, but....HEY GAL posted:as it happens, i'm going to a conference on The Fiscal-Military State...today, actually. Peter Wilson's going to be there. Cool! I look forward to your 10,000 word report. Lord Tywin posted:This book is exactly what you're looking for http://www.amazon.com/The-Business-War-Enterprise-Revolution/dp/0521735580 , read it recently and it really goes into detail how the wars were financed and mercenaries were used. Aha! Thank you - this looks like the ticket. Adding to my Book Depository wishlist. feedmegin posted:For what it's worth, 'war financing' and 'financing things as a state in general' are pretty closely related in this period. Wars are expensive, rulers like to do them a lot, and the state isn't doing and hence having to pay for a lot of the non-war-related stuff a modern state does. So a general book on, say, Jean-Baptiste Colbert and the French economy under Louis XIV is mostly telling you how he raised enough cash that Louis could blow it on warfare. That's what I thought. I was under the general impression that things like parliaments arose from monarchs needing to implement taxes to raise cash for war and the people (well, the better-dressed, fancier people) having to give them permission. It is interesting that the major expense for all these kingdoms, countries, etc is loving up the OTHER kingdoms, countries, etc. Unfortunately, the Marquis de Sade was a bit more concerned with other... secular matters rather than the political scene of the late 17th century. The 120 Days of Tax Farming and its Effect on Social Mobility during the Bourbon Dynasty probably not quite as catchy a title.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
^^^ I only glanced at your post initially and wondered why you'd be roadtesting Poptarts in this thread.Xiahou Dun posted:I mean Musashi talks about parrying in the Book of Five Rings a bunch and if anyone knew how to fight with a katana, he's kind of the go to guy so I'd wanna see a source. For this, you will need one (1) oar... sullat posted:Oh man, I'd read that. But the Parliament -> taxes thing is kind of an English shtick. Most of the other European powers didn't have to deal with that until a lot more recently. Well, I was about to argue something something French Revolution, but then Wikipedia said that the French King didn't need the States-General to approve taxation law like the English King needed his Parliament to, so I shut my mouth. I'd thought this was a more general requirement, but I guess the rest of the European monarchs weren't dumb enough to be Magna Carte'd or whatever. All this katana talk is making me weary. Let's mix military history with literature and read an excerpt from The Tale of the Heike or as it should be known: How Half the Population of Medieval Japan Became Monks, Topped Themselves or Got Sniped in Epic Archery Duels. The Tale of the Heike posted:Kanehira heard the shout as he fought. "I don't need to protect anybody now. Take a look, easterners! This is how the bravest man in Japan commits suicide!" he said. He put the tip of his sword in his mouth, jumped headlong from his horse and perished, run through. Thus, it turned out that there was no fighting worth mentioning at Awazu. All quiet on the Western Front, indeed. There's a woodcut in the edition I have illustrating this, but the book's in a box somewhere and I can't find a copy on line. Elissimpark fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Friar John posted:I love the Tale of the Heike. It's fascinating comparing that style of warfare to the mass-ranked ashigaru battles of the Sengoku Jidai. I remember someone was talking about this but in relation to Chinese warfare - not sure whether here or in the Ancient History thread. The problem with the Tale is that it starts with just about the best opening line ever but then devolves into having to remember who hundreds of different dudes are and why I should care that they're dying. Still really like it though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Understanding the financial state of the Ancien Régime is difficult when you look at it through the lens of the modern bureaucratic state. Theoretically the King's power was absolute, in practice the nobility had many ways to stymie royal authority, and the (from a modern perspective) incredibly underdeveloped royal administration had limited capacity to enforce its decrees. Yeah, that's why I was thinking of the whole "needing parliament to get sweet, sweet tax money". I think the last French Revolution related thing I watched was actually about Versailles and the Louises from XIV to XVI. It mentioned these issues, but didn't quite go into detail.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:The lantern shield: HEY GAL posted:revolversword Remember the old saying: don't bring a lantern shield to a sword revolver fight. Grand Prize Winner posted:It's like a shield, but you stick your whole arm through the hole where the boss should be and then it ends in a gauntlet. This is brilliant:  Its like everyone around the dude with the tharch can't believe he actually wore a tharch to the battle. Guy on the horse is like "CHAAAR- holy crap, is that a shield-glove?!" The guys he's beating on are completely discombobulated. And the old guy with the big mustache and the fez? He could stop himself getting axed but damned if he's gonna live on an earth where a man rocks up to a battle with a tharch. Its just not early modern Russian cricket.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:speaking of naked people, did you know that at least some East Germans are fine with getting naked in front of other people? i have seen so much I remember watching a documentary about sex education in East Germany during the Communist years - I can't remember the name - but the gist being they were very straight forward and explicit about it. I think they were trying to encourage the creation of more healthy East Germans. On a more milhist note, how important have ergonomics been in deciding military tactics? I was swinging a spade around like a battle axe whilst doing some digging in the garden yesterday and it occurred to me that a simple jabbing motion is much less taxing than a giant swing. If you wanted your dudes to last a day of battle, you'd want them to be doing things in the most efficient way possible. Jabbing at someone with a pike seems easier than running about with a double-handed sword.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 01:38
|
|
since i started my PhD
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
lenoon posted:Saw a good talk on Sunday on Dada as a response to mutilation in war, it was good! Really rehabilitated Dada in my eyes. Any chance of a summary?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 01:56
|
|