Slim Jim Pickens posted:

Sounds like this

HEY GAL posted:

deceiving your enemy is fine (Wallenstein at Nassau Bridge), ambushing them or attempting to ambush them (GA at Luetzen) is fine, attacking from the back is fine (Baner at Wittstock), refusing to take prisoners is a little sketch but not unheard of (Frankfurt-Oder, the battle one of Piccolomini's sons died after). You do what you can to win, they're not robots, like the way weebs think about bushido.

Disinterested posted:

I thought of D when I saw it.

Owlkill posted:

Sorry to bring something up from a couple of pages back but I've seen this referred to as a Tarleton, I think. Currently reading Mark Urban's Fusiliers, about a British fusilier regiment in the revolutionary war, and he discusses how one of the British generals (Howe, I think) brought in uniform reforms for the light infantry, one of which was the replacement of the tricorn with a "leather cap", I think the idea behind it is it makes moving around/handling your weapon (hurhur) a lot easier than the tricorn that was the norm for British line infantry at the time. I've seen headgear that spans the gamut from being very similar to what you posted but with a small peak right up to ones that look like a smaller version of the grenadier's mitre. Also, for some reason the light infantry at the time were nicknamed the "light bobs".

Here, have a pic:

aldantefax posted:

Medieval/ancient history:

Has there ever been a time in history where close combat infantry with melee weapons (I'm thinking swords and other weapons of the sort) were the primary factor in deciding victory as opposed to cavalry, pikemen, archers/artillery/riflemen)? I'm referring to dudes getting in the mix with their arming swords and maces and what not making a sizeable difference. I always considered this type of infantry to be more of a screen to prevent other less armored or mobile targets from getting overrun immediately or to buy time to set up a charge, but I'd like to read about the exceptions.

aldantefax posted:

Would that mean that the shield (and the formation dependent on it) is more important than the sword? I know for the Roman shield wall the gladius was designed around the scutum. Or, am I getting that backwards as well? Not actually sure.

P-Mack posted:

Please explain what "teleology" means for those of us in the cheap seats, thank you.

turn it up TURN ME ON posted:

The wifey-poo and I were talking about Game of Thrones last night and we were trying to figure out if it mimics one specific era of time. It seems like it borrows from middle ages all the way up through the Renaissance.

The pieces we could identify were:

Kingdoms rather than more modern democracy
Standing, professional armies seem to be a thing
No gunpowder
Writing/reading is a valued trait and knowledge is preserved in libraries
Castles have more modern designs (for newer ones), but not to the level of star forts

OwlFancier posted:

"Near catastrophic retreat and concession of all gained ground along with majority of materiel" is not quite what I'd call a rally.

It really is odd that it's quite so lionized.

Fangz posted:

OwlFancier posted:

I thought both the Alamo and Thermopylae were supposed to be tactical victories, with the defenders exacting a disproportionate price for what the attackers gained.

my dad posted:

I thought the big deal about Thermopilae was that it kept the Greek coalition from falling apart because it was a big glowing "Yes, we really will fight to the bitter end for your sake" sign from one of the two major coalition leaders. Was I misinformed?

Professor Shark posted:

I just assumed they did it based on movies, I thought it was a way of making sure injured soldier didn't make their way back to the enemy

P-Mack posted:

Especially if you are cutting from the wrist without solid structure. I remember we had a cool post a while back about British officers duelling locals in India and the different cutting techniques leading to very different outcomes upon contact.

SimonCat posted:

Supposedly the quilted jackets the Chinese wore in the Korean War were enough to stop US .30 carbine rounds.

Alchenar posted:

I think Richard Holmes said that there was a massive debate in British Cavalry about whether a foreswing or a backswing or thrust was best and they couldn't quite work out why they were doing so badly and it seems the real reason was they were all incredibly lazy and didn't ever bother to sharpen their swords.

SlothfulCobra posted:

It's crazy how much naval combat was changed by guns. It's really exemplified when you read accounts of Portuguese ships rolling around to Asia, getting involved in a fight, and then just annihilating everything because their adversaries still are trying simple crash and boarding tactics.

bewbies posted:

I've had to untangle the stuff from under heavy trucks and that is an absolute nightmare.

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

Ol' Kaiser Bill really had issues with tact, didn't he?

SeanBeansShako posted:

Now imagine doing that in Asian or African climates.

Just think of the Sikh Army seeing all this happening and wondering 'what in the gently caress?'?

HEY GAIL posted:

also the terrible nutrition wasn't every place and time in the past but only certain ones (large cities in england during the first half of the 19th century, western europe during the early 17th century, etc). it's entirely possible that your elite bowmen had been well fed during their childhoods, allowing them to grow up into the kind of barrel chested hulks that this job required

Disinterested posted:

And much like the crossbow it devalues men on horses in expensive armour who train in murder for a lifetime.

Disinterested posted:

Who was talking about the social system?

Ardent Communist posted:

Selling grain whilst some ukrainians starved does suck, but it wasn't because Stalin personally hated ukrainians, but because they needed the capital to modernize. I think it's easy to be critical of that, but remember that that country played the biggest role in defeating fascism, sacrificing millions of lives in a war of extermination.

Schenck v. U.S. posted:

Do you mean the real-life person, or how he was depicted in the show? In the miniseries, Sobel is clearly a very effective instructor. He drives them hard and they hate him, but they rise to his challenge and develop as soldiers under his instruction. To the extent of preparing the men for action, he is as responsible for their survival and success in combat as any character on the show. At the same time, he's not really competent to command them in the field. He's indecisive, he doesn't understand maneuver, he can't read maps, etc. The show gives the character a lot of credit as an instructor but none as a leader of men.

IRL, I don't know. The miniseries follows Stephen Ambrose's book pretty closely, and that was all based on first-person interviews, after-action reports, and so forth. I did not read the book; I did watch the series; I don't know how factual any of it is. I will point out one thing I definitely noticed the show failing to seriously address: Sobel was Jewish. I can't believe that his background didn't have a significant effect on his relationship with people above and below him in the chain of command, particularly given the elite nature of airborne troops. For example, maybe the soldiers that Ambrose interviewed all said that he was an unlikable martinet, and refused to serve under him, mainly because they resented taking orders from a Jew, and they later found reasons to justify it. It isn't at all implausible, given the default level of antisemitism of American society in the 1940s.

Hazzard posted:

Some interesting facts I learnt. In the 19th century British Army, before some reforms, Officers would use any blade they wanted, as long as it had a regulation hilt. This went as far as one officer attaching a 17th century Spanish Rapier hilt to his saber guard. I'm sure Hey Gal will be simultaneously thrilled and horrified to hear it.

Naval officers really liked broadsword blades, we don't know why.

And apparently the Rebel Yell from the American Civil War came from the Highland Cry, which was used in the Jacobite Wars. Can somebody tell me the significance of the Rebel Yell?

Hazzard posted:

The thing that seemed weird to me about the rapier example, is the blade and hilt seemed like such a mismatch. I think of Rapiers as having very long blades, which doesn't fit my image of a 19th century officer.

Having done taken part in a 30 on 30 melee fight, I suppose representing a scaled down encounter on a battlefield. I don't think it's specifically the yell itself that would scare people, but such an unusual noise, possibly piercing above the general sound of clashing steel and yelling, might instill a fear in someone.

I had a brief readthrough of the wikipedia page and it struck me as something that was more to do with motivating the soldiers doing it. You're making a noise, the men next to you are making a noise. You're all making a noise together and that's something unifying as you charge the enemy.

To use a different example. I think it's very difficult for people to imagine the fear you'd get from an enemy cavalry charge, with many people severely overestimating how easy it is to stay still when you see people running at you. In the melee I keep harkening back to, when it seemed like the whole enemy team was running at us, many people started stepping backwards, with a minority running forwards towards the enemy to meet them.

And this is without anyone even consciously thinking they were going to die, but the animal brain in all of us starts thinking it's life or death. At the beginning of the exercise, we were told to wear light protection, because this was about group tactics and we should pull our blows. Everyone after the first encounter put on as much protective kit as they could, because in the thick of it, we all forgot to pull our blows.

Grady McWhiney posted:

McWhiney and Forrest McDonald were the authors of the "Celtic Thesis," which holds that most Southerners were of Celtic ancestry (as opposed to Anglo-Saxon), and that all groups he declared to be "Celtic" (Scots-Irish, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and Cornish) were descended from warlike herdsmen, in contrast to the peaceful farmers who predominated in England. They attempted to trace numerous ways in which the Celtic culture shaped social, economic and military behavior. For example, they demonstrated that livestock raising (especially of cattle and hogs) developed a more individualistic, militant society than tilling the soil.

Attack and Die stressed the ferocity of the Celtic warrior tradition. In "Continuity in Celtic Warfare." (1981) McWhiney argues that an analysis of Celtic warfare from 225 BC to 1865 demonstrates cultural continuity. The Celts repeatedly took high risks that resulted in lost battles and lost wars. Celts were not self-disciplined, patient, or tenacious. They fought boldly but recklessly in the battles of Telamon (225 BC), Culloden (1746) and Gettysburg (1863). According to their thesis, the South lost the Civil War because Southerners fought like their Celtic ancestors, who were intensely loyal to their leaders but lacked efficiency, perseverance, and foresight.

the JJ posted:

It's pretty well attested to in contemporary letters home and the like, and survivors commentaries afterward. I think it's good to be suspicious of Lost Cause historiography, but generally that suits going to happen on the level of interpretation, not fabrication, if that makes sense.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/what-did-the-rebel-yell-sound-like/

Some fucker posted:

The other thing is to convince the general public that the Confederacy and racism are not synonymous terms. In the past 25 years the general public has been putting those two together. When they come here, we tend to open their eyes.

I look at the virtue, the courage, the self-sacrifice of the typical Confederate soldier as inspiring and uplifting. And trying to cram that person into a pigeonhole of racism is just completely wrong.

The same fucker posted:

The association of the Confederacy with racism “is a new phenomenon, and it’s a phenomenon that will pass,” he said.

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

Holy crap this is one of the biggest piles of poo poo I've ever read about the Civil War including the Lost Cause.

OwlFancier posted:

"We've always done it that way" is a thing that crops up repeatedly in military history and often requires a resounding massacre of the people who always did it that way by the people who do it the new way before people catch on.

bewbies posted:

So, can you fix your priceless katana/rapier/broadsword in most cases? I guess I don't really have a very good handle on how often they were used and how fragile they were/weren't.

HEY GUNS posted:

the sword ma guy would know, genrow?

HEY GUNS posted:

and at that time the inside of a scabbard was wood/wood lined with rabbit fur/jacked leather/recycled medieval parchment (in at least one case)

Kanine posted:

cool how nobody actually said anything about the contents of the passage

GotLag posted:

Also, wearing white clothes parades the fact that you're incapable of doing honest work.

Phobophilia posted:

Fraternization across lines probably has a longer history pre-rise of the modern state, considering how easy it is to serve multiple masters, and the fluid level of loyalties. Like it would probably get clamped down in a siege, but in a melee you might try to avoid stabbing the dude you know, or if two foraging parties run into one another.