Ask me about Military History!

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask me about Military History!

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

A bit later in Roman history, but anyone want to break down the Roman/Persian wars and the late Roman civil wars for me? Specifically the disintegration of Constantine's dynasty and the death of Julian the Apostate. I read an abridged Gibbon's Decline and Fall (mostly a bet) but it cut/he never wrote in a whole lot of detail on the seemingly interminable wars on the Eastern frontier, except 'and then this general died and the Roman's had to cede this city.'

Also, should anybody feel willing, a quick compare/contrast with Mark Antony's failed Parthian campaign.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2011 09:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 22:30

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Mustang posted:

Yeah, I don't know why anybody would possibly want to be Emperor then, seems like a guaranteed early death.

Many a general was raised up by his legions against his will. Many were be aware of the consequences and likelihood of failure, but their soldiers would insist anyway, because tossing a purple robe on your figurehead made your otherwise run of the mill rebellion that much more inspiring or likely to succeed. Plus, all the cool rebellions had purple robes. No one wanted to miss out on that. Between that and the Praetorian Guard's habit of selling the purple you get the ridiculous turnover rates. I don't know how whoever's charts those were takes into account the potential usurpers.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2011 04:20

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Cataphract Paladin posted:

Continuing on my Chinese history tangent/comparison, the first emperor of the Song dynasty was also installed on the throne in one such incident, as were a great many emperors of the Five Dynasty - Ten Kingdoms era. But since he was competent, he went ahead and uninstalled pretty much every of his conspiring generals who put him on the throne in the first place within like a year of his crowning. Suffice to say the Song dynasty existed for like three hundred years after that point until the Mongols came by and shishkebab'd the whole thing**.

The key difference between that and the Roman thing we see here is that the generals crowned were, most oftenly, incompetent in keeping their power-hungry followers in check. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the Year of the Four Emperor, when treacheries and betrayal of an emperor by people who put him there in the first place happened like two-three times in rapid succession.

* Essentially, said "halberds" were just a spear with a hafted pick tied onto the shaft for variation. But hey, the core concept is essentially the same.
** That is just a basic simplification. What actually happened in that 300 years was way more complex than that.

Bringing my contributions to this thread full circle (I put up something about the Romans and the Persians a few pages back) Gibbons seems to think Julian would have gone that way if he'd hadn't eaten a Persian arrow. I find his hard-on for the guy known as "the Apostate" amusing, and I'm surprised I haven't seen more bad alt-history books coming out of it. I guess it's a bit more complex than a real life/Christianity smothered in the grave split, but the idea of a pagan counter swing after Christianity already had a lot of traction is interesting at least.

Anyway, again with the Gibbon, but he describes at one point Alaric camped outside Rome, and he takes the time to explain the unimaginable excesses of the wealthy, just how huge Rome (the city) had gotten since the Republic, mentions the rebound from Carthage... and then mocks the anemic attempts at resistance that absolutely failed to match up to their ancestor's famous gently caress off to Hannibal.

So what happened? Were the urban dwellers of Rome, numerous as they may have been, too used to victory and too reliant on auxiliaries to fight for them less martial than their ancestors? Or were they defeated by the critical lack of leadership, even (especially) of the foolhardy kind willing to throw away army after army out of sheer cussedness? Did the vast disparity in wealth soften the rich and enervate the poor? (Gogo OWS!) Did ~~illegal immigration~~ slavery destroy the proud and superior Roman culture with their poor work ethic and taking Roman jobs at lower wages? Is Gibbons talking out his rear end?

# ¿ Nov 2, 2011 07:55

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Cataphract Paladin posted:

I think this is a very good litmus test for which faction was going to survive the trials of time and which was not. Factions that could put aside its internal squabbles in times of need (Think of it this way - the ruling class of any nation were people too. And people have conflicts of interests, personal likes and dislikes, among others.) would survive, and those that could not, well, they'd end up just like the examples above. Throughout history we've seen ample examples of both cases.

I am still inclined to think this is due to leadership more than anything else. The primary reason why the Teutons and Cimbri lost so soundly to Marius (if I were to trust Plutarch's descriptions, anyway) was because they didn't know what they were doing, underestimated their enemies, rushed into battle in the same way a mobster would, and didn't know what was coming, while the Romans were well-prepared and well-led, and Marius managed to take advantage of both the terrain and the weather. I'd go ahead to say that the leadership of those tribal armies were as good as none.

On the other hand, after the 4th century AD, the Romans no longer had very talented leaders who knew how to best make best use of their troops, owing to both degeneration in the nobility and the talented ones being purged by the emperors or their detractors. So while they could still maintain at the very least a strong core of quality troops - the Comitatenses were, AFAIK, not too worse off from the Legion's height in equipment, training and elans alike - they could no longer make good use of them.

Of course, there are a ton of other factors that we just discussed, but I am of the opinion that the primary reason for the lack of late Roman crushing military successes was a lack of good leadership.

I dunno, if it was just a lack of leadership then what caused the lack? Gibbons* takes the time to lionize Stilcho and his doomed attempts to hold back the tide, but pop culture has never heard of him because he didn't win, nor was he written into the histories of the victors as a feared man, even though he beat Alaric multiple times. Diocletian gets mixed reviews, (refusing to retake the purple, for instance) Constantine, Julian, Justinian, all late great Emperors who were unable to do anything more than patch the holes and bail out a bit of water. Yes, Valens hosed things right up, but one man losing one battle is not an systemic, endemic failure, where as Rome's collapse was.

*hey, it was pretty comprehensive and I don't have time to run down mountains of modern interpretations and reinterpretations, that's why I'm here instead of writing academic papers on the subject.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2011 06:56

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Cataphract Paladin posted:

And that is exactly why the collapse of the WRE was a topic much debated - there was no one reason* that caused it.

As for Adrianople, I think that battle was a lot more... shall I say "symbolic"? than it was material on a grand strategy level at that time. Think of it this way: You are just a common person, having grown up and raised to believe that an infallible emperor who might as well be one of the immortal gods above rule over you and your fantastic civilization. You idolize the army, or at least see those guys dressed in shining chain mail and waving about their javelins in the street as some kind of badass incarnated. And then BOOM, one bad turn of battle and said emperor and all his army got killed. And not just killed, they got completely crushed, routed and slaughtered like animals. The fact that said arrogant emperor had likely regarded the battle as just something as trivial as another opportunity to flaunt his mad leets commanding skillz rather than a life-and-death battle is just the icing of the cake.

Now, obviously, not being in Rome in person at that time, I can't really say for any certainty, but I'd say there must have been multiple utterances of "Where are your gods now?" in town that day. I bet ten bucks on that.

Well, I think the constant civil wars and rebellions probably did in any myth of Imperial infallibility long before that. The Empire always had less computations about legitimacy of succession and the like, they were pretty down for the 'whoever has the power has the power' methodology of legitimacy. Yeah, they deified some dead emperors, but that meant a lot less than it would now with our omnipotent monotheistic tradition.

quote:

* To clarify on my last post, since it might be misinterpreted to mean that I was saying "the lack of good leadership was the only reason that doomed the Roman army/empire": What I was trying to say was that till the very end the Romans still had a theoretically tough army owing to tradition, technology, training, the latest reforms and all other undeniable advantages that having a martial culture over nearly eight centuries would bring, but (i) even that army was proving to be insufficient to combat the new threats, and (ii) the leadership of the Roman empire was poor and, frankly speaking, did not know what it was doing. It was not one or the other - it was both, and I think the latter is more important than the former.

Point i. is horrifically general and vague, point ii. ignores many a counter example (Stilicho, Constantine on the 'good and late,' the gently caress ups who, e.g. threw armies away at Cannae or Teutoburg on the 'early and stupid.') and fails to adequately explain the reason for this lack of leadership.

Mans posted:

People should also realize that the fall of the western roman empire wasn't a catastrophe. There where no Dark Ages, no barbarian slaughter, no destruction of the arts. It's really important to clarify that what happened was the natural process of a decaying structure, with the people who took over adopting most of the stable and organized structure of Roman economic life and adapting it to modern, decentralized lives.

I think the truth is somewhere in between. All things are a 'natural' process in one way or another, but in a lot of places many things were 'adopted,' many others were simply replaced. No one built new roads or aqueducts, and the system of trade within the Empire flat collapsed. The transition to the feudal manorial system is fascinating, but even though Duke comes from Dux but Dux just means 'leader.' It's not an adaptation of Roman structure, that's a boldfaced admission that hey, I'm a warlord. Will trade military service for land.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2011 19:19

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Deception posted:

EDIT: and GOD drat can we as historians stop saying the fall of the west and the fall of the east,THE ROMAN EMPIRE FELL IN 1452! Gibbons can suck a large one.

Eh, I see what emerged in Constantinople was a different beast than what came before. It was more Greek than Latin, it lost control of a great deal of the things that had made Rome Rome. Like, well Rome. They spoke Greek, were ethnically a mess but certainly not 'Italian' by any stretch, they had a new religion from even further east and legitimacy-by-blood dynastic continuity went out the window long before. What made them Roman then, aside from their trappings and titles? With out the West and the rise of Islam even the Eastern Empire shrunk down to a rump state of what Diocletian had claimed as his jurisdiction, much less the old Republican borders. When the Pope split and around the time this Frank guy Charlemagne took over the area you could pretty well call the whole thing fallen, and delineating between East and West is a legitimate way to talk about the issue.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2011 02:40

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Deception posted:

These statements don't hold much weight, although I do enjoy your enthusiasm on the topic. Using the battle of Cannae is an absolutely TERRIBLE example. First of all we are talking about a highly trained army that had fought not 1 or 2 but MANY battles. Hannibal also devised a genius strategy to encircle and literally SLAUGHTER the entire untrained and inexperienced coalition formed army of the Roman forces, please read deeper into this topic.

This does little to change the point made that despite being multinational Hannibal beat a force that could communicate freely.

quote:

Also you must realize that Rome never had many great victories, they normally underhanded most of their enemies against each other or fought among themselves.

Grammar nitpicks noted, bolded. Underhanded is not the verb you're looking for but it parses. No major disagreements here.

quote:

In fact, I'd say most of Rome's greater victories are after the republic era and during the Justinian reign.

Define 'victories.' Justinian certainly was a good leader, but his salient 'victories' were to temporarily recover bits and pieces of the West.

quote:

If you go to my old thread I have a slew of sources and great commentary of the "byzantine era." (I won't even capitalize this).

Appeal to unseen authority. There's a lively debate on the subject, I'll grant.

quote:

Another thing to mention is that most modern historians will agree with this idea and not falsify their rightful claim to being the Roman Empire.

I don't think anyone said they did. The point being made is that there's a vast and irrevocable distance between the old Roman Empire and what emerges in Constantinople. People make fun of the Holy Roman Empire for being a secular German confederation, and likewise the Byzantine Empire is named for the city that was its capital.

quote:

It died in 1453 and many other historians will agree with this statement.

It here being the entity know as the Eastern Roman Empire, yeah. Osman Turks, yadah yadah.

quote:

It is a terrible shame that one author changed the view of many people. It is unfair to the people and history of the Roman Empire as a whole, and it's unfair to the legacy of what they left after the 4th century to be continually unnoticed until recently.

Shame and unfair, to me, has little place in historical arguments. To me, pointing out that the sack of Rome and subsequent transition to a tribal/feudal/manorial/monarchical governance across vast swaths in the West and the Eastern Empire giving up on recovering it to hold on to its ever shrinking domain is a big enough deal to talk about it as 'the Fall of the Roman Empire.'

quote:

Hell, the west would not even be ANYTHING had it not been for those crazy byzantines, I mean Romans.

I don't even know what to say. I mean, it would still be a thing. Maybe a different thing, but hey, Hilter could've been a black Jewish ninja robot. Then things would be different things as well.

quote:

And your own argument about the dynastic line being diluted is so ridiculous. You do realize for 100 years pre-Constatine Rome had over 76 emperors? Most of these emperors were great warriors who led most of their men with valor but ended up dying by the sword by the very men they led. Please. Diluted is a joke.

Again, I'm not sure what to say to this. The point being made was that there was no dynastic continuity from Augustus or whoever to the later Eastern dynasties because, yeah, there was a lot of turnover and blood linage was always an interesting issue when it came to succession. Soo... I agree with you?

# ¿ Nov 4, 2011 04:20

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Deception posted:

I'll start with this first, my point is that to even call the lineage pure is a joke. The roman linage was never pure at any point, only in the very early stages of the autocracy will you see a "pure" roman lineage. So to even use the diluted term to debunk a valid argument is not exactly, I don't know, right. To clarify, I was trying to say that it doesn't matter how many Romans were Emperors, what matters is that they were Roman, for the most part, and those Romans are linked to the leadership in Constantinople.

That's the same point I'm making. I think I brought up the issue dynastic linage as a hypothetical 'why the Eastern Roman Empire is the same entity as the Roman Empire.' The only point I was making was that arguing along dynastic lines (e.g. the Ottoman Empire, Ming China, etc. etc.) didn't really work for Rome.

quote:

I don't think you understood my comment. On almost all levels a multinational army and a highly nationalized army are two different beasts. Hannibal slept and ate with his men, he knew what it was like to be a solider and he led his troops accordingly. The Romans did not know how to defeat him until they used their own advantages against him. There order and knowledge of his tactics, including training the hell of their troops, would eventually bring Hannibal down and that sir is why the whole "being Roman" thing won over the multinational mercenary army.

And I think the more unified spirit of Rome had little to do with their success at Zama. Yes, we wanked for a few page over their :black101:

response to Cannae and telling Hannibal to gently caress off, but the point is having one unified tongue/language isn't going to make or break a campaign. Hell, the Roman's flipped the Numidian cavalry to their side, which helped them win. Leaders sleeping with their men (teehee) wasn't part of the debate.

quote:

I would like your sources on how court was any different,

Well, after a while they managed to not kill the Emperor every few years, that was a big deal. A new Senate was created whole cloth, and with the Empire shrinking they shed a lot of the provincial governorships. The army got reformed as well, I believe. Anyone more up to snuff want to jump in, feel free.

quote:

also lets not stray from the fact the some of the most powerful families from Rome moved to Constantinople and would continue to live there until it fell. Or the fact that these same noble families would play a roll in not only leading it to greatness but also it's eventual downfall.

But I thought we already established the blood linage would be a garbage way to define Rome since it was never a purely dynastic governance.

quote:

The ethnicity was not different, in fact I would say it was more Roman.

They spoke Greek and worshiped different gods. Arguably, medieval England was more Roman at this point since their rulers at least spoke a Romance language. Take a 0 AD Roman and dump them in 1200 AD Rome or Constantinople, and either way they'd be loving lost.

quote:

Romes population was nothing compared to what it was before Constantinople even became the capitol, I'd go as far as saying that the city of Rome itself was a barbarian state after it was out of the empire.

Yeah, we know. Hence 'the Fall of Rome.'

quote:

Read Constantine the Great by Paul Stephenson, or pick up a simple book by Lars Bronsworth. Or read 1453 by Roger Crowling. These are all books that will support my statement one way or another. To say that its a crux is highly vague. Please list your sources.

If I had that sort of free time I wouldn't be trying to learn history from people on the internet. C'est la vie.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2011 05:00

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Mans posted:

People realize that any decent Roman knew both Latin and Greek right? That every single person of worthy in both the western and eastern part of the empire could speak Greek like most Europeans speak English?

Sure, but below that level Greek became primary, and as noted even the elites bowed to reality.

quote:

The only thing that might've felled were cities, Rome fell, Constantinople fell, Paris and Berlin fell.

Fallen, or been felled possibly. Certainly, the sack of Rome as a city is a big deal in and of itself.

quote:

It's absolutely retarded that an Empire fell when the "falling" process took generations to complete,

Why? Isn't that what makes the whole narrative so intriguing?

quote:

and the eastern part was as roman as the western, if not more.

How? Define 'Roman'ness. I'd define it around, I dunno, Rome. The language was different, the religion was different, the culture was different.

quote:

The luxurious trade from the orient came to the eastern merchant towns. Religion, philosophy, education, everything came from the east.

Setting aside the weird nationalistic vibes I'm getting, I agree. So it wasn't Roman, religion, philosophy, education, everything was different.

quote:

To say that the state that supplied it's western counterpart with most of it's resources is not Rome is simply a falacy of the greatest kind.

And I'd say that Rome supplied the Roman Empire with a certain Romaness and that I agree with you, the unified Empire as it was under Augustus was a fundamentally different beast than the structure the rose in Constantinople.

quote:

Are the Omayyad and Abbasid Empires not Islamic empires simply because of geographic shifts?

Well yeah, but just because the Ottoman's claimed to be the rightful caliphate until Ataturk doesn't mean I don't can't talk about the fall of the Abbasid Empire when some guy got wrapped in a rug and trampled by Mongolian horses.

Likewise the ERE was (loosely) Roman, but it was fundamentally not the same as THE ROMAN EMPIRE!!!11!!!1! Thus, using the term 'the Fall of Rome' is a perfectly legitimate way to discuss the general decline of the Empire, Diocletian's split, the mass migrations, the breakdown of centralized political power in the West, and the failure of the Emperor in Byzantium to return the lost west to the fold.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2011 19:56

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Mans posted:

Rome didn't mean much in economic or administrative terms even in the Italian specter of things. Ravenna and Milan where much more important centers in Italy and this is just from the top of my head. And what sack? That city was sacked various times. Rome had it's value and whenever it was sacked it was a tragedy, but none of it's multiple sacks meant it doomed the empire.

Right, I wouldn't define the 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' by the (multiple) sackings of Rome. That was just a response to someone calling the 'Fall of Paris' a big thing.

quote:

Then by that logic the edict of Thessalonica killed Rome. It removed Roman religion in favor of Christianity, turning the later parts of the empire incomparable to the previous empire. The transfer of the capital to any of the various cities in Italy also killed the Roman Empire because Rome was no longer the center of the state. Do you consider the Monarchy period of Roman history to be part of Roman history? They where Etruscan in culture, they used hoplites, they even had kings! What does that era have to do with the Republic? Nothing! And what does the republic,with it's senate and consuls, completely in love with the Hellenistic world, with it's military reforms and massive land expansions and with it's new enemies have to do with the monarchy period? Nothing.

I agree and I don't. I'm not saying and never said we shouldn't study the ERE or Byzantine Empire as part of Roman history, just that using the term 'the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' to refer to the general events starting with, well, possibly the first time the Praetorian's auctioned off the Empire up through the dissolution of the WRE and on to the Turkish capture of Constantinople is a 'fair' (or whatever, adequate) way to talk about it. I talk about the Byzantine (byzantine?) Empire as separate from the 'original' or 'real' or whatever Roman Empire the same way I consider the Republic different than the Empire, even though they both had a senate. Because the situation had fundamentally changed.

quote:

Time changes people, it would be obvious that a state changes itself as time passes by too, especially the almost two thousand year old entity that was the Roman empire.

Good, we agree.

quote:

Roman history and philosophy of life changed. 4th century B.C. Romans would be baffled with the way 1st century B.C. life was. Rome changed when it entered into contact with the east, like the Greeks did when the Persian gates opened themselves due to Alexander.

Again, I don't totally disagree.

quote:

Poor Al-Musta'sim
But that was a different situation, the Abbasids, even if they where extremely reduced in their political sphere, ended with the fall of Bagdad. There was no equivalent term in Roman history expect the fall of Constantinople, which truly ended the Roman state.

Sure, the Abbasid dynasty died out, but the Caliphate continued, just under different people in different places with different claims to it's legacy. Yet I still talk about the fall of the Abbasids.

E: I guess this is my big point. Lacking (until the ERE settled down) clear dynastic eras, my problem is this jankedy semantic mess.

quote:

It's much more reasonable to say "the fall of the western empire", Odoacer didn't end the western empire when he captured Rome, he had to go to Ravenna to tell Romulus Augustus to piss off.

Here's the crux of the issue. I think this is silly. By the time you split it in two the Roman Empire, as it was, is gone. Suddenly we must talk about the WRE and the ERE but the RE proper is no longer really an entity. I'm not saying that Diocletian ended Rome, because despite the proliferation of purple the Empire remained in many ways unified culturally, politically, religiously, administratively, conceptually, whatever. After this, you talk about the WRE and the ERE and the HRE and the Holy See and all sorts of things that are like and have varying claims to the history of Rome, but the Empire had changed.

quote:

The Roman Empire wasn't focused on Rome for quite a while, since the split the eastern part was clearly the strongest part, and they clearly led the Roman legacy until the 15th century.

'Leading the legacy' is a weird, subjective issue.

the JJ fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Nov 5, 2011

# ¿ Nov 5, 2011 00:33

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Mans posted:

While massacres occurred during that time, the idea of genocide against entire peoples was something strictly Roman. And the fall of a decaying state isn't a tragedy, it's the opportunity for something better to develop, which ended up happening, even if it took sometime to materialize. And what was the reason for the collapse of literacy and trade if not because of Roman instability and insecurity? Something that can't be put entirely to blame in the foreign tribes that entered the empire.

The invasions helped the Roman Empire to fall, and this is quite honestly something good. It was a dying state, it would most likely fall under it's own weight sooner or later. Why it's a tragedy that a collapsing empire fell when outside sources were smart enough to kick them while they where down is simply silly. That's like saying that Philip II of Macedon was a monster when he dominated the weakened Greek States in the south, or how horrible Alexander was for taking advantage of the Persian's weakened state.

The Romans grew by smartly taking their chances and taking advantage of moments of weakness by their neighbors, to say that it's a tragedy when someone else did it to them doesn't make any sense.

This is double speaky to me. The Romans were bad and genocidal (sort of) but their collapse was an opportunity. It cuts both ways.

I'm not saying that the barbarian's were EEEEEVIL or anything. They were doing what they did, moving around trying to survive or hunting for glory or getting by, and I think the whole movement of the peoples in that time is fascinating. I wish they'd been more literate so we could hear there side of the story.

Still, for the people who'd been isolated from the worst of the wars, who'd enjoyed Pax Romana and the roads and aqueducts, yeah, the collapse had its downsides, regardless of who to 'blame for it.' Maybe a more centralized state could've dealt with the Vikings better, maybe Italy wouldn't be such a freaking mess, maybe, well, whatever. I don't really see the point in moralizing something like the collapse of the Empire, it was simply to big and multifaceted for anyone to have been responsible for it, much less applying some sort of moral judgement.

Actually, I'd love to learn more about the integration of German into Europe as a whole. It went from this dark land the ate Legions and poo poo invading hordes who had a penchant for ending up in Spain or North Africa to being full of these big ole' cities, home to a Baltic trade league and a multitude of princedoms of varying levels of pettiness.

# ¿ Nov 6, 2011 19:00

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Throatwarbler posted:

If your entire front is being put to flight by "localized numerical superiority" when the other side doesn't actually have more people in total than you do, what conclusion are we to draw?

... that real life is not a video game with instant and perfect communications between fronts nor can the necessary material to take advantage of information that may or may not be available be pulled out of thin air so that the side which can control where and when shifts in local superiority happen has the clear advantage?

I guess I'm a bit confused on the points being made in this whole bit.

# ¿ Dec 28, 2011 10:33

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

SlothfulCobra posted:

I was under the impression that most ancient-to-medieval warfare was all about spears and pikes, and swords were more for either mounted combat or sidearms for when formations break down into skirmishes. What niches were all these other weapons developed for, if that was the case?

Well, for most of those Indian ones that you posted they're definitely not 'ancient' just because they came out of India. Check the dates. Most of those would've been there to supplement muskets and cannons when things got close.

The wiki articles basically cover, but the khanda is a big gently caress off cutting edge, the katara would've been a back up weapon, probably for really tight quarters, like a trench knife, or maybe for jabbing into less armored places in people, and the pata thingy, eh, really only exceptional in how whole hog they went with the integrated gauntlet.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2012 23:54

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

IM_DA_DECIDER posted:

All of these make sense except for the Khanda. Why would you not add a tip for stabbing on your sword?

Because it's made for hacking people to bits instead of poking them? From the looks of it trying to add a taper to that would've greatly increased the effort needed to make the weapon, which as it is is 'long broad hunk of metal, sharpened on the sides, and stuck on a handle.'

# ¿ Feb 7, 2012 18:09

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Can I get a run down on the Early Islamic armies? I'm talking defense of Medina/taking of Mecca, conquest of Persia, and their North African expansions mostly.

Equipment, organization, training and recruitment, important wins/losses that didn't make it to general knowledge, adaptations to new recruits/enemies etc. all appreciated.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2012 04:39

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Annnnnnnd way more effort than I was expecting. Awesome.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2012 05:59

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Veins McGee posted:

Do you hold a grudge against the Romans or the Mongols because they might have killed some other unknown ancestor of yours?

It's about as obnoxious as people getting pissed because that drat Sherman burnt down great-to the xth-granddaddy's farm.

quote:

Reconstruction failed more because of Lincoln's death, politics and a lack of will to continue(or giving a poo poo) than because the South wasn't punished enough.

Eh... the thing is, there was the infamous 'carpetbagger' era of martial law and the Freedmen's Bureau which, while not ideal, did see a swift tamping down of the KKK/other resurgent, vengeful groups and *gasp* saw black men voting and serving in Congress! It is this 'repression' that the South so bitterly laments.

Basically it was lifted after a close, contested election (lots of ballot stuffing and voter intimidation on both sides) in which the Republican's basically 'traded' the end of martial law for the one Electoral vote needed to keep the White House.

At which point the KKK et. al. promptly exploded into action and Jim Crow rolled in pretty much instantly.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2012 10:09

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Marlows posted:

Well, the problem lies in the mixing up of anti-slavery versus abolitionism. One of the unfortunate side effects of Lost Cause mythology being so thoroughly debunked is an assumption that the Republican Party was an abolitionist party. It was not the case at all. Had it been so it would never have attracted a large enough voting base necessary to win national offices. Anti-slavery sentiment had more to do with the fear of the "Slave Power" dominating national politics. The "Slave Power" referred to the belief in a Southern conspiracy of sorts was dominating national politics in a selfish bid to ensure slavery's future at the cost of everything else. And to be fair, their is some truth to this, especially in the Buchanan administration. But, empathy over the plight of slaves was not a rallying call except for a loud, but small portion of northern voters. By contrast, Abolitionists took pride int heir belief that it was the evils of slavery that motivated their actions, and not fears of slavery destroying the free labor system or dominating politics. Abolitionists were very important in shaping popular attitudes, but sadly their empathy never reached the public at large.

That's not to say that the ideology of the Republican Party remained unchanged through the war. The battle between Congress and Lincoln over Reconstruction policies illustrate the growing strength of the radical wing. Regardless though, abolitionists remained a minority within the party for the war's duration.

There were Republican abolitionists, and abolitionists who saw the Republican Party as sluggish on the issue, but its a mistake to make this group serve as a representative sample of society as a whole. Its wish fulfillment to imagine the North in this way. Immigrant groups and factory labor were terrified of a potential influx of free blacks taking their jobs. Lets not forget the lynchings during the New York Draft Riots, which had less to do with he North's fairly lenient draft than in anger at even believing for one moment that emancipation was a goal. The Republican Party was not immune to racial prejudices and, at Lincoln's behest, sought to win the votes of War Democrats and a potential base of white Southern Unionists; both groups who despite hating the Confederacy, were opposed to speedy emancipation.

The Confederate States seceded because they felt that a prohibition in Slavery's expansion (the Republicans were not calling for emancipation yet) was a sign that the institution could not safely continue in the U.S. But, the United States did not go to war over slavery, but to prevent the dissolution of their nation. Northerners believed their nation to be an example to the world of the republican form of government, and felt that the CSA seceding would send a death knell to democracy. Leaving a nation due to simply losing an election threatened the ability to actually enact any form of legislation. Furthermore, the Planter Aristocracy were already felt, and rightly felt, to be anti-democratic enemies of the growing class of wage laborers. Gary Gallagher in "The Union War" does a good job covering this.

Abolitionists made up only a fraction of Union armies, and many of these became abolitionists during the war and were not prior. Emancipation as policy needs to be seen in its war time context, given how the US High Command realized that slavery was the cornerstone of the CSA. Moral beliefs on slavery's evils were present, but it took war time justification to bring aboard most of a skeptical population on the issue.

Apologies for the long post, and no offense intended, but the over simplification of Northern attitudes on slavery is becoming increasingly problematic. The Lost Cause Theory of the war is garbage, very interesting garbage to study though, but we can't replace it with an over cheerful view of the North that has no basis in reality. When Abolitionism is distinguished from generic, moderate anti-slavery sentiment, it becomes much easier to understand why the North abandoned freed people in the South at Reconstruction's close. It also helps make sense of national efforts of reconciliation later in the century, which as a process swept the contributions of African-Americans in the war under the rug. Black Union veterans were barred from veteran celebrations and leading politicians such as Theodore Roosevelt among others openly questioned whether the 14th and 15th Amendments were worth passing, a pretty good sign at how the white South truly won the aftermath of the Civil War.

I think you are underselling some of the Northern politicians, particularly post-War. Pre-war, certainly, 'free soil' had as much to do with the economic competition provided by slave labor, and equality was never really a goal, but an end to brutality and inhumanity was certainly part of the discourse, and one the South found particularly worrying, often seeking to silence Northern presses.

Additionally, in that forgotten decade or so after the war there is an incredible pursuit by the Reconstruction government to effect change and right wrongs. A simply economic objection to slavery simply does not explain the, say repeated attempts by the Republican Congress to pass equal rights bills and amendments over vetoes from the president, even to the point of provoking him into violating a BS law they'd enacted (over Johnson's veto) to keep Lincoln appointed Radicals in Cabinet positions, particularly Edward Stanton, the Secretary of War and the man in charge of enforcing the (congressional mandated over Johnson's veto) martial law. Impeachment passed, and three times Congress failed to convict by just one vote. Within 6 years of the 1860 election Congress (well the Senate) was one vote away from a legislative coup d'�tat because Johnson didn't want to play ball not on abolition but on voting rights and the Freedman's Bureau. Because the vote needed 2/3rds majority to pass, that's a 35-19 split in FAVOR of removing Johnson.

This is within two, three elections of the start of the war, less than that for the Senate. You also have to remember that a lot of the Republican positions pre-War were short of spectacular, but they were also drafted in a situation in which war was not seen as necessarily inevitable and in which no one wanted to be see as the uncompromising dicks who started it by being idiots. There was a tradition of grand compromises utterly alien to today's politics, but you have to remember that one of the 3rd parties that fractured the 1860 election was the 'hey let's not go crazy and secede/force anyone to secede' party. They won whole states. It was a complicated mess, but there were definitely factions in the North a lot more gung ho on 'equality' than are given credit.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2012 06:12

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

I just skimmed through but it seemed some of the assets were not maintained/decommissioned, and reaction time/which side initiates hostilities might preclude instant beefing up to Cold War status.

# ¿ May 5, 2012 04:13

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Grand Prize Winner posted:

In India, the Jains have been complete pacifists since 300BC or so. Coincidentally, there aren't very many of them anymore.

They build some beautiful temples though. And they're only small compared to India's overall population.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2012 18:00

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Mr. Sunshine posted:

Is there here anyone who's knowledgeable about the Crimean War? It (along with the Franco-Prussian War) was the major precursor to WWI, yet I don't know anything about it apart from the charge of the light brigade. What was it about? Why the hell were British and French soldiers in Crimea, pretty deep into (then) Russian territory?

Basically loving around to maintain the balance of power. The Russian's were kicking the poo poo out of the Ottomans, at this point the 'Sick Man of Europe,' who the Brits and to a lesser extent the French found useful as a sufficiently stabilizing force in the region that was also weak enough to bend to their needs. They rolled in up the Black Sea as opposed to, well, anywhere else in Russia because, as Napoleon had shown, there wasn't a whole lot to be gained in marching on Moscow. The British and the French, to win, merely had to prevent the Russians from doing what they wanted, which was easier to achieve by contesting the Crimea than landing at the theoretically closer Baltic regions or whatever.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2012 08:10

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

SeanBeansShako posted:

I learnt how the Greek War for Independence cost the Ottomans their Egyptian vassals. The Greek War of Independence is drat facinating to read about. Somebody should do a break down of it.

Well, that and an amusingly dysfunctional government.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2012 16:08

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

OperaMouse posted:

Reminds me of some Pacific campaign stories.

GI: "We always shoot the guys with the swords (katanas) first."
Reporter: "That's because they are the officers, right?"
GI: "No, because they have a loving sword."

Yes, from a science fiction novel.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2012 18:25

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Groda posted:

No, "A-Stan" really does sound stupid as hell.

Well, -stan is a pretty common suffix. I hear a-stan and think 'which one?'

# ¿ Sep 1, 2012 07:32

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Blckdrgn posted:

Perhaps this is more physics based, but I think it could spark an interesting discussion. With guns, smoothbore and rifled alike, the very first used rather large projectiles, which would then hover around .50 cal for some time before shrinking down to the .30 cal then shrinking again to the 5.56mm for fairly common things. What were the driving forces for bullet sizes and use as history progressed to the point where we are now? My uneducated guess here would be propellant, since damage is roughly equivalent to mass and velocity, with low grade propellants you don't have much velocity, and would make up for it with mass.

"Damage" is a pretty poor measure. It's not really a driving concern until you get down to the tank vs. tank 'can the Sherman penetrate the Panther's front armor?' stuff that gets retread here once every, oh, half page or so.

Mass and velocity though, assuming you use the same amount of propellant, would be inversely related.

I'm no expert but I think barrel manufacturing techniques and loading processes had a lot to do with it.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2012 02:22

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Yeah, sauerkraut became liberty cabbage and hamburger's liberty steak. I think a German got lynched once too. Anyway, for all the Nazi awfulness, there was less of that around WWII. Some people think that the restrictive 20's era immigration laws contributed to the Americanization and assimilation of a lot of minorities. Without 'fresh blood' from the homeland those that could pass on skin color adjusted culturally and Americanized. That's one theory. Plus there's Red Scare stuff, and the European was seen as a little less national, a little more ideological, more about hating fascism than Germans in general... it's complicated.

# ¿ Oct 10, 2012 08:14

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Branis posted:

So when did mercenaries stop being widely used in warfare? I know that PMC type companies have made a resurgence with iraq and afghanistan it seems like but was there those types of companies doing security type work or even fighting in the late 1800s-early 1900s all the way to ww2 at all?

There were a fair few colonial groups you could call mercenary in nature. British East India Trading Company and what not, and hiring the locals to fight with you wasn't unknown.

In Europe, the mercenary armies kinda had their heyday in the 30 Years War, but with the whole Wallenstein debacle everyone sort of started leaning back on hereditary officer classes and more state run stuff. Then France has it's revolution and we're into the modern era.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2012 20:59

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

I think a sub also shelled some part of Santa Barbra to.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2012 19:59

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Al-Saqr posted:

WOW this looks fantastic! quick question though, weren't the Japanese super isolationist during that time period? what made them decide to try their hand at an invasion? Wasnt china at that time period a major world power that the Japanese had to take into account?

They went isolationist almost immediately afterwards. Basically Toyotomi Hideyoshi is the guy who launched the invasion of Korea because, well, he'd just united all of Japan, what the gently caress else was he supposed to do? (Also, lots of armed angry men who've been fighting each other for generations needed something to do that wasn't plotting against him) And yeah, China got involved and that, along with the Korean navy cutting the supply lines, force Hideyoshi back.

When Tokugawa took over after Hideyoshi (via a brief civil war, nothing big) he basically looked at all the powerful feudal lords underneath him and said 'well gently caress that poo poo' and totally reordered society to prevent any of the feudal lords from amassing power. Part of that meant isolating Japan.

# ¿ Dec 7, 2012 12:11

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

SlothfulCobra posted:

Why did Japan abandon Korea after conquering it the first time?

Like, this time we're talking about now? Ming China threw a lot of men at them and the Korean navy trashed their supply lines. Never really conquered it so much as showed up and trashed the place. The only time they really conquered it they left because, well, it was the end of WWII and they had to give all their toys back to the the Soviets and the American's, so that they could play toy soldiers with them.

# ¿ Dec 7, 2012 22:52

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Bacarruda posted:

You're absolutely right, outside and human factors would be extremely important in any hypothetical engagement.

Both Panokseons and galleys were designed for fleet combat (although the Barbary corsairs certainly employed galleys successfully in individual engagements). Their historical employment reflects this. A 100v100 fight might be a better indication of each design's potential.

However, for argument's sake, let's assume a 1v1 in littoral waters unknown to both captains, with rested crews of historically-typical quality.

For the Venetian galley, the best course of action is going to close the engagement range with the Panokseon as quickly as possible. The vessel is well-equipped to do this. With oars, 16th century Venetian galleys had a 7-10 knot burst speed.

The main battery on the Panokseon (13-20 gun broadside) has about a 1000m range. If the captain elects to use the exploding daejeon darts, it's 500m. Rowing at 7 knots, the Venetian galley can cover a kilometer in about 4.6 minutes. This gives the Koreans the chance to fire one broadside, possibly two, before the Venetians close the distance.

A sleek (5m wide), fast-moving galley is a difficult target, particularly for the the crude smoothbore guns of the era. For accuracy and effect, the best option is to hold fire as long as possible. Against the packed decks of the galley, a point-blank volley from the Koreans. However, holding fire that long would require discipline on the part of the Korean crew.

Armament-wise, the Venetian galley packs a formidable punch. At the bow, there's a 50-55 pounder canone and four 6-12 pounder aspidi or falconetti, up to four swivel guns, plus the muskets of the embarked marines. The gunners are going to hold fire until the moment before impact. Then, they're going to let fly and send ninety pounds of roundshot, hailshot and musket balls into the Panokseon and her crew. Seconds later, the galley's beak is going to slam into Korean ship.

It's important to remember a couple of things at this point. One, the galley's guns are mounted less than a meter above the waterline. At close range, their point of impact is going to to be on the Panokseon's waterline. The roundshot is going to blow large holes in the hull and send a shower of splinters into the Korean rowers packed on the lower decks. Second, a 150-200+ ton galley moving at 7-10 knots is going to exert an enormous amount of momentum (about 58,8000 kg m/s). Odds are, the beak of the galley will punch a sizable hole, also near the waterline. The Korean ship isn't going to be in great shape at this point.

In fairness, the Venetians are going to be pretty beat up as well. They'll have taken serious casualties from arrows, musketry and cannon fire. The breastplates and casques of the soldiers/marines and "gentlemen adventurers" will give them some protection, but the exposed rowers will have been hit hard. To make matters worse, the Koreans will now be lobbing grenades on deck.

After impact, the battle would disintegrate into a melee. The Venetians will be scrambling aboard the Panokseon up the side of the ship and through the newly-smashed holes. The Koreans have about 125 marines and 50-60 crew, minus losses. Before losses, the Venetians have 75 sailors and gunners, 130-140 rowers, and 50-130 marines and "gentlemen adventurers." Since this is a Venetian galley, the rowers are armed freemen and can join the fight . Even without embarked troops, it's fair to say the Venetians have the number advantage at this point.

If the Venetian crew can get enough men aboard the Panokseon and if they can keep the swivel guns firing hailshot into the Korean's upper decks, they have a good chance to carry the day, albeit with heavy losses. And even if they lose, the Panokseon is still at serious risk of sinking from its battle damage.

This assumes the Koreans sit there and wait for the Venitians to engage rather than maneuver to extend the time they can deploy their fire power.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2012 10:00

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

I picked up a copy of Wilson's book, and it was misprinted. Something like pages 150-200 repeated where 200-250 should have been. A good book otherwise though.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2013 01:39

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:

Seriously? I hope you were able to get a refund or something. I'm just looking at my own right now, and it seems OK.

By the time I noticed I was halfway across the country and in the middle of nowhere. And I bought it cheap, with a gift card, from a local independent bookstore. It was a pretty good read anyway. Seemed convincing, though I wasn't sure on how other scholars viewed it. You seem qualified and endorsed it though, so good enough for me.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2013 02:17

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

uinfuirudo posted:

sengoku jidai style logic.

Soo... coldly rational and inclined toward treachery? I assume you meant Tokugawa/Meiji style Bushido logic.

I think it was fairly similar to the European phasing out as armor advanced ahead of weaponry, shields became less useful. A lot of infantry fighting was with polearms (in which case two hands on the pole and extra length tended to beat out shields) or archery from horseback, which also needed two hands.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2013 23:33

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Lord Tywin posted:

Has there ever been a major warrior culture that has abandoned some piece of equipment because it is cowardly? Since I can't imagine any such culture existing for very long.

Umm... the Spartans refused to build walls?

# ¿ Jan 30, 2013 01:28

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

At least a fair amount of 'broken' infantry formations are broken by the men saying 'gently caress this' as the horses come in. It's lie a big game of chicken, only one guy is on a horse.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2013 05:27

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

There seems to be a specialisation in types of military horses and horsemanship that really starts in the 13th century but reaches its apex around the 16th-17th where cavalrymen typically have very particular tasks. Compare the definite differences between light and heavy cavalry in the 16th century vs. the rather ambiguous Knighthood of the 11th and 12th, and their respective roles. The number of horses in armies also increases quite seriously from the 15th-16th centuries, and I suspect, but have not far looked into, how this would have affected the training of them, but would make sense that the diminution of the cavalry arm, as well as hand-to-hand skirmishing roles for some types of cavalry and the decline of the joust meant that neither horse nor rider were as heavily trained as their predecessors. The horses were certainly of good breeding in the later periods, there can really be no doubt about that, but the way they were trained, I suspect, changed. The movement from lances to firearms likely would have been a large part of that.

Lancers were still a thing in the Napoleonic Era, from which we get the universal 'squares that stand don't break' maxim. If the infantry (who, note, were not holding big rear end pikes, 'merely' bayoneted muskets) held their positions and their discipline, they would only be broken by cavalry in freak cases (e.g. the dead horse caroming forward, sowing confusion and opening a big hole.) I think the transition away from lances to the carocle etc. happened because dense and disciplined infantry could stymie a charge, not the other way around.

quote:

When the king heard that the Duke of Burgundy was forced to surrender, he took the rest of the people and defeated a body of twelve thousand foot soldiers that had been sent to oppose him. They were all trampled upon and destroyed, and in this engagement a shot killed the horse of my lord Lienhart Richartinger; and I, Hanns Schiltberger, his runner, when I saw this, rode up to him in the crowd and assisted him to mount my own horse, and I then mounted another which belonged to the Turks, and rode back to the other runners. And when all the Turkish footsoldiers were killed, the king advanced upon another corps which was of horse.

This, for instance, says nothing about the discipline of the infantry involved, and now one is arguing that cavalry could slaughter a broken formation at will. If you're trying to use 'they were all trampled upon and destroyed' as evidence for 'horses literally running over all the infantry' I'd say that that's not an unusual turn of phrase and ambiguous in translation. When the Panzers 'overran' the French country side they weren't literally running over squads of French infantry.

quote:

Knocked to their knees unwillingly, they leapt back to their feet, causing others to be bumped down. The king and his men gave chase and hemmed them in amid much slaughter. Those he came up against he wiped out, and he wiped them out as much by the blow of his sword as by the very fierce charge of his horse, sending them splashing into the river Marne.

So we've got an already broken formation, a note that his not using weapons to kill as exceptional, and the fierce charge 'sending them splashing into the River.' So the horses hit the men on the ground just hard enough to send them flying, al la Sauron tossing aside men in Lord of the Rings films, into the river, but all the horses pulled just in time to not go flying into the water after them yet pulled this stop without flinging their rider into the water after the infantry. (Ever seen a horse refuse a hurdle? Not fun for the rider.)or did the broken and battered infantry, upon seeing a few thousand pounds of armored horse and rider bearing down on them, panic and leap splashing into the River, their only escape?

quote:

There befell a lively skirmish. The Constable did not let all his men take part therein, but Pero Ni�o was there mounted on a good horse and well armed, and he came away from the midst of the troop and was soon some way off with Ruy Diaz de Mendoza the Bald, who said to Pero Ni�o: "I know this country, and I will show you a good path by which you can go against the Moors." Ruy Diaz said this to see what he would do, and Pero Ni�o for his part desired to test his companion, who was rumoured to be a valiant knight and a good gentleman. Pero Ni�o was pressing forward with this intent, when the Constable came up to him and reasoned with him so much that he restrained him this time; but before he had rejoined the troop the skirmish began again at close quarters, and Pero Ni�o returned to it with three or four of his men, for there were no more of them that had seen what was happening. As the Moors were on the height above an escarpment, between the rocks and the mosque, the knight and his horse, which bore no armour, found themselves closely pressed there. They hurled so many stones at them that the horse half-wheeled, whereat Pero Ni�o felt great displeasure and great shame, for never had might of enemies driven him back nor made him turn. And the horse, which was gallant and loyal, returned to the charge, feeling the will of its rider, and thrust itself into the midst of the Moors in such wise that their line was broken and that they took to flight towards the town. And let him know, who would know, that between Pero Ni�o and the Christians of his following there were more than a hundred Moors; and he went forward striking and killing, and as the place was strait, not a blow was lost. When he had broken his lance against them he drew his sword, and struck so many and such signal blows that it was all one whether those whom they reached were armed or not, for none of them used lance again.
Thus did he go as far as the bridge which is near to the city; then there came out a knight armed and on foot, who most boldly came up to him near enough to get his hands on the horse's reigns. Pero Ni�o struck him such a blow on top of the head, that he split his headpiece over his skull, and the moor fell to the ground dead, but with the blow Pero Ni�o nearly lost his sword. In this hour he had to pass through perils and labours so great that no other knight in the world has ever had to face more in the same length of time; for the Moors had seized him by the legs, and sought to drag him from his horse, and tore off the sheath of his sword and dagger; but with the help of God he freed himself from them all in fine fashion; and whoever looked closely might see those above the gate leave the walls and fly toward the castle. Thus cutting his way, Pero Nino felt his horse weaken beneath him; and he looked and saw that it had lost much blood and could no longer bear him and that his spurs availed him little. Then he turned the head of his horse, that had reached the end of its forces, toward his own men, and continued to strike and cut a way out of the midst of the Moors who were laying hands upon him. The horse came of good stock; although strength failed it by reason of the great blows and wounds it had received, its courage did not fail, and it got its master out of the pass. Before the horse fell, a page brought up another to Pero Ni�o and a moment later the brave horse rolled dead to the ground, its entrails coming out of its belly.

First the enemy formation is broken and the rider finds himself among the enemy. No one is saying the horsemen can't do that, it was kinda their thing. Then poo poo gets hairy. All the mentions of killing are by the knight on the horse with his lance and sword, not the horse running people over like bowling pins. The horse is moving through the Moors, but all mentions of killing are the rider cutting men away.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2013 23:29

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Ok, since I guess there isn't a general book covering early modern warfare in Europe I'm wondering if anyone knows what books are the definitive accounts of major wars like the 30 years war, seven years war, etc.

This is a pretty good look at the 30 Years War, well written and easy to read, reasonably up to date scholarship, and I remember it was goon approved by someone with more qualifications than me.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2013 21:06

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Rabhadh posted:

I agree with Rodrigo Diaz, amime is the greatest atrocity of them all

Anime is a Japanese abbreviation of animation.

It was us, it was the imperialists all along... :negative:

But yeah, Japan hosed up by hitting the US. WWII was not a peacekeeping operation, none of the belligerents (at least at a national level) got involved because they saw the awful poo poo going on in the respective colonial possessions of the other parties. (Be that Korea or the Philippines or Congo or India or Poland or wherever.) I mean, you could look at the decolonization by everyone afterwards and call that a plus, but you really got to wonder about how much of that was morality and how much of that was merely practicality. (cough Algeria cough Vietnam cough cough.)

# ¿ Feb 7, 2013 20:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 22:30

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Azran posted:

Besides the Japanese and their samurai, which other cultures had a military, noble feudal caste equivalent to the European knight?

Depending on how broadly you define it, a fair amount. If land = food and swords = power, you're going to start seeing people with swords going around to the people tilling the land and demanding food rather than do the work themselves. The Spartans maintained a serf populace and use land ownership as their qualifications for entry, a lot of empires would reward warriors with land for service. Ottoman Sipahis did that. I'm not terribly up to date, but I think parts of Africa did this as well. Then you've got the Indian castes, which is a bit more complex than sword>pitchfork, but then, all of these examples are more complicated than that if you really start looking.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2013 08:39

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask me about Military History!

«‹›2 »