|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I have heard this story too! I think it's the guy who painted a bunch of english ladies with bulbous eggy heads. I think it's at least documented that Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette's husband, had never seen female genitalia before marrying her and found it horrifying. His name was John Ruskin. He was one of the founders of the Pre-Raphaelites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ruskin
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
Khazar-khum posted:His name was John Ruskin. He was one of the founders of the Pre-Raphaelites. Yeah them! Real into eggy headed ladies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
It may not be how the disgusting 3D females look like, but my perfect waifu will have an egg-shaped head and no pubic hair!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:So instead it was just way easier and safer to hammer on the grunts, with kind of an unspoken understanding that nobody wanted to start battery-on-battery poo poo, though as I understand that started going away as it got easier and easier to properly zero in on enemy positions. I thought it was a simple range issue. Artillery is placed well behind the front lines. You can hit no‐mans land and the enemy’s trenches, but not enemy artillery, which is a good deal farther. If the enemy artillery has comparable range, they’re in the same bind. If you move your artillery up far enough to put enemy artillery in range, you’ve just put yourself in their range. You’re also vulnerable to direct attack, while they get to shell you from miles behind the front. You’ve put yourself in a strictly inferior position. So you don’t. You park as far back as you can while still being able to hit the enemy infantry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
Tasteful Dickpic posted:It may not be how the disgusting 3D females look like, but my perfect waifu will have an egg-shaped head and no pubic hair! Roman men shaped their pubic hair into neat curls. This was thought to be purely artistic convention, until it was seen on some of the bodies at Pompeii.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:They don't put pubes on sculptures. They did so in Rocky Horror Picture Show 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
Khazar-khum posted:Roman men shaped their pubic hair into neat curls. This was thought to be purely artistic convention, until it was seen on some of the bodies at Pompeii. Wait, they could see pubic hair on those bodies?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
meatbag posted:Wait, they could see pubic hair on those bodies? Pyroclastic flow covered everything in hot ash, and more importantly consumed all the oxygen available for further decomposition. So yes, yes they could.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:odysseus lied all the time This could mean that Odysseus was the crisis that was mentioned earlier
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Pyroclastic flow covered everything in hot ash, and more importantly consumed all the oxygen available for further decomposition. I figured hot ash would singe hair. What did their regular hair look like?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:I figured hot ash would singe hair. What did their regular hair look like? They really liked curls. I've actually been studying the history and evolution of fashion recently, and it's fascinating seeing how far back some of the connections go. Modern fashion dates back to the 1920s (a man's suit from the 1920s onward generally won't look completely out of date), but the time period of about 1795-1820 was a wild ride. It was the first time fashion really started to be a means of individual expression instead of indicating what class you belonged to, and the first time people of all classes started to dress similarly. It was the beginning of men wearing simple and unadorned clothes instead of ruffles and tassels and ribbons and slashed fabrics, as now masculine clothes were meant to emphasize a man's shapely body. One of the weirdest short-lived trends in France was the Directoire style, which only lasted for a few years in the 1790s. Everyone suddenly got obsessed with Neo-Classical motifs thanks to the rediscovery of Ancient Roman and Greek artwork and philosophy and started dressing like it for like, 5 years.  This didn't last long, but the Empire silhouette took inspiration from it and ended up with stylish European women dressing in something completely unlike prior or later fashions. It was really popular from around 1800 till 1815, then everything shifted back toward something a little more 18th century. This is an evening gown from 1809:  The style got revived in the 1920s with the flappers, which ironically makes fashion from 200 years ago look surprisingly recent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I've actually been studying the history and evolution of fashion recently, and it's fascinating seeing how far back some of the connections go. Modern fashion dates back to the 1920s (a man's suit from the 1920s onward generally won't look completely out of date), but the time period of about 1795-1820 was a wild ride. It was the first time fashion really started to be a means of individual expression instead of indicating what class you belonged to, and the first time people of all classes started to dress similarly. It was the beginning of men wearing simple and unadorned clothes instead of ruffles and tassels and ribbons and slashed fabrics, as now masculine clothes were meant to emphasize a man's shapely body. This was probably because of the Napoleonic Wars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
If you go back a little further, you have the reign of terror where suddenly the all the aristocratic ladies were wearing plain gowns and calling each other citizen to avoid looking too ostentatious. Napoleon's coronation portrait shows him crowning Josephine because during the coronation he crowned himself (Much to the disgust of pope Pius VII, who was supposed to do it) and it wasn't thought seemly to depict that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Jaguars! posted:If you go back a little further, you have the reign of terror where suddenly the all the aristocratic ladies were wearing plain gowns and calling each other citizen to avoid looking too ostentatious. The Reign of Terror is actually credited with men wearing pants/trousers instead of breeches (the distinguishing feature is that pants go all the way to the ankles, while breeches end at or just below the knee). Long trousers were worn by the workers and peasants while the aristocratic men wore breeches and tall stockings. When the aristocrats suddenly started getting their heads chopped off, it became rather unfashionable to dress like them. Hogge Wild posted:This was probably because of the Napoleonic Wars. It had a lot to do with, again, the Neo-Classical revival. The old Greek and Roman statues were viewed as depicting the ideal natural form, so clothing began to be cut to emphasize this natural form for men. When the cut and fit of the clothes became important, fancy decorations fell by the wayside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:On the WWI topic, and paraphrasing since it's from a documentary I saw. If you want to see some modern Arty on Arty madness, the War in the Donbass has provided a lot of material for your viewing. Russian aircraft can't operate in the Ukraine openly (because Russia is still pretending to be a neutral party), and Ukranian aircraft can't operate over the Donbass because of all the AA that the Russians have given the 'rebels'. Consequently, during the active phase of the war, each side's artillery was playing a game of cat and mouse with each other, with one side firing their rounds and then getting the hell out of dodge before the shells started coming down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:If you want to see some modern Arty on Arty madness, the War in the Donbass has provided a lot of material for your viewing. Russian aircraft can't operate in the Ukraine openly (because Russia is still pretending to be a neutral party), and Ukranian aircraft can't operate over the Donbass because of all the AA that the Russians have given the 'rebels'. Consequently, during the active phase of the war, each side's artillery was playing a game of cat and mouse with each other, with one side firing their rounds and then getting the hell out of dodge before the shells started coming down. Apparently there's also been somewhat revolutionary use of drones in the war, since it takes place in a country where the insurgents have lots of access to modern technology. Camera drones and tablets or other screens to see through their feeds are relatively cheap today, which makes them the perfect scouts and artillery spotters. You no longer need to get a forward observer within a dangerous distance of the enemy and you can get a bird's eye view of the battlefield easily, and small drones are pretty difficult to shoot down or lock onto with heat-seeking missiles designed for shooting down large aircraft. Once a drone gets in the sky, rocket artillery can come right after it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:On the WWI topic, and paraphrasing since it's from a documentary I saw. I feel like ammunition was also a consideration. It seems like artillery batteries were is two states during WW1; stocking up ammunition for an assault or low on ammunition after an assault. WW1 pushed everyone manufacturing capabilities to the very limit. WW1 and WW2 in many ways were wars of economies; which side could withstand the burden. They probably didn't try to attack other sides artillery purely because the ammunition was needed for more pressing matters. If you guys are not already you should watch "The Great War" on youtube. It chronicles WW1 week by week as it happened 100 years ago. It really shows what a stupid/horrible/meaningless war it was chitoryu12 posted:Apparently there's also been somewhat revolutionary use of drones in the war, since it takes place in a country where the insurgents have lots of access to modern technology. Camera drones and tablets or other screens to see through their feeds are relatively cheap today, which makes them the perfect scouts and artillery spotters. You no longer need to get a forward observer within a dangerous distance of the enemy and you can get a bird's eye view of the battlefield easily, and small drones are pretty difficult to shoot down or lock onto with heat-seeking missiles designed for shooting down large aircraft. Once a drone gets in the sky, rocket artillery can come right after it. I feel like you watched the same Vice thing I did. Modern warfare is horrible. I'm not saying old'n style was any picnic but there is a grim efficiency to modern warfare that wasn't really there before. Just watch any Apache gun cam video and you get the sense that technology makes the globe a no man's land. Someone can gently caress your poo poo up from miles away with with pinpoint accuracy. You used to have to carpet bomb an entire area to hope to hit something, an endeavor requiring wings of planes, tones of bombs, and alot of manpower. All that has been reduced to one low flying cruise missile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Rasmus posted:I feel like you watched the same Vice thing I did. I actually haven't! Another forum member who does some kind of work in the defense industry posted a summary of a paper regarding the Ukrainian War in one of the threads about warfare (maybe the Airpower/Cold War thread). Among other things, the classic idea of Cold War-style giant tank formations and gathering tons of troops in the open while preparing for a battle is now suicide due to the ease with which drones can be used to spy on your location and bring down artillery fire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:People for a long time would've killed for the sort of trivially cheap bright pigments that mcdonalds' garishness is made of. Pretty sure they literally killed for pigments (and spices, and textiles)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
One of my favourite historical factoids is that Wyatt Earp was alive in the 1920s and spent the last few years of his life living in Hollywood and working as a consultant on westerns. Before I learned that, I assumed he'd died well before the 20th century, but no, he was still going, and Buffalo Bill lived to see America's entry in to the First World War. I guess it's tempting to assume that all the "Wild West" stuff happened much further back in the past but a great deal of the really famous stuff took place and a lot of the most notorious characters (my favourite is James Reavis) performed most of their exploits after the American Civil War. I guess it's pretty remarkable how America as a country hasn't been around for very long in the grand scheme of things but it's still managed to fit a whole lot of history into that time. I believe President John Tyler still has living grandsons, doesn't he? And he was born in the 18th century. That sort of thing is real, "Well, how about that!" stuff to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I believe President John Tyler still has living grandsons, doesn't he? And he was born in the 18th century. That sort of thing is real, "Well, how about that!" stuff to me. John Tyler was 63 when his son Lyon Gardiner Tyler was born, and Lyon was 75 when his younger son Harrison was born. John Tyler married twice, and Lyon was one of the seven born to his second wife. He had fifteen kids in total. Harrison Tyler is still alive as of 2016 at the age of 88, and reportedly pretty sharp. His older brother Lyon Jr. is 92 by now, I think, and still alive as of September.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
There are three living people who were born in the nineteenth century.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:There are three living people who were born in the nineteenth century. As someone that lost the genetic lottery, this poo poo fascinates and enrages me. Not only did they hit the perfect set of genes for survival, but managed to live through wars, spanish flu, be lucky enough to be healthy during a good portion of their life where medical science was nowhere near where it is now, probably did labour. Just the amount of factors to add up to something like that is mind boggling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:Pretty sure they literally killed for pigments (and spices, and textiles) Try mixing up a batch of woad, or spinning thread and weaving a textile by hand. You will come to learn why it might be worth killing someone for a bolt of cloth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Try mixing up a batch of woad, or spinning thread and weaving a textile by hand. You will come to learn why it might be worth killing someone for a bolt of cloth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dJuZx81fyw
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
There absolutely were active attempts (which became increasingly successful) during the course of WWI to make counter-battery artillery fire a thing. Particularly the British and Canadian gunners were active in these endeavours, and some of their more ornate firing plans had a lot of counter-battery missions rolled in. They started to get pretty good at techniques like sound ranging and triangulation by the end of the war, as a supplement to methods like aerial observation. It's worth reading some histories that are concerned specifically with artillery in that conflict, because that war truly saw artillery tactics progress by leaps and bounds. It's also funny to note that the French army, in a mad scramble to get trench mortars in play, were literally using several mortars from the Napoleonic Wars at the outset of the war, too. They pulled them out of storage and put them to work in 1914. The British used some too, calling them "Toby mortars", until they had contemporary designs on hand (the first British designs were out in 1915). Alain Perdrix has a new favorite as of 06:21 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:One of my favourite historical factoids is that Wyatt Earp was alive in the 1920s and spent the last few years of his life living in Hollywood and working as a consultant on westerns. Before I learned that, I assumed he'd died well before the 20th century, but no, he was still going, and Buffalo Bill lived to see America's entry in to the First World War. I guess it's tempting to assume that all the "Wild West" stuff happened much further back in the past but a great deal of the really famous stuff took place and a lot of the most notorious characters (my favourite is James Reavis) performed most of their exploits after the American Civil War. The first person who ever played Jesse James on film was his son.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Things that were true when the Chicago Cubs won the world series on 14 October 1908: The game wasn’t broadcast on radio. Vacuum tubes hadn’t even been commercialized. The first ball game broadcast was in 1921. No one had set foot at the North or South Poles. The Titanic existed only on blueprints. Its keel was laid down on 16 Dec 1908. The air speed record was 32.73 mph. Hitler was a homeless teenager in Vienna. John F. Kennedy had not yet been born (29 May 1917). It was not possible to place a telephone call from New York to San Francisco (25 January 1915). Platystemon has a new favorite as of 09:43 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:Pretty sure they literally killed for pigments (and spices, and textiles) The Dutch approach to controlling the spice trade in the West Indies/southeast Asia was that they'd arrive at an island and force whoever the local ruler was to become a client state of the Dutch so they could secure favourable export rates and prevent them trading with other people. If they arrived at an island that didn't have a local ruler but ruled by committee instead, as in the case with the Banda Islands where nutmeg was grown, they decided a better approach would be to kill everyone on the island, import a bunch of slave labour and grow the nutmeg that way instead. The population of Bandanese on the islands went from around 14,000 to zero, and then to 500-odd when Dutch quickly returned some enslaved individuals to the island when they realised that they needed some people around to show them how to actually grow the nutmeg.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
The Wild West wasn't just recent, it was also really short, like depending who you ask 1865-1895. It had a massive effect on American popular culture and our image internally and abroad, but it was not a lengthy period.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
As I recall even by 1865 "frontier" genre fiction was already well established, though the stories tended to be set around the Catskills and Appalachia instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:The Wild West wasn't just recent, it was also really short, like depending who you ask 1865-1895. It had a massive effect on American popular culture and our image internally and abroad, but it was not a lengthy period. You can blame this almost entirely on the 1893 Chicago Worlds Fair. I think it's safe to say that the period we think of the "wild" west, as in the large amount of untamed lands filled with lawless violence, gunslingers and other cliches never really existed. You can basically lay it down into three periods: The construction of the trans continental railroad system, the shortening of distances and the revival period. If you want to put years to it, the start would be the Vanguard Company of 1847 (the start of the Mormon Exodus) and the end would be around 1883 when Edenborn simplified the process of making barbed wire (which dropped the price over the following year or two by about 95 percent). The construction of the railroad is when most of the really bad poo poo happened. That was when there was a mass exodus of labor from the recently raped and pillaged south that placed former confederates in close proximity with union authority figures but also with the now free and gainfully employed former slave population. You had Chinese labor coming in from the west coast and the Irish coming in from the east. And everybody was fighting hard just to scrape by and get as much money as they could working on or around what was then one of the largest transportation construction projects ever attempted in American history (previously it would have been the brief period of canal construction that exploded after the end of the AWI, even George Washington was a believer and investor in one). Towns and settlements moved with the work on the railroad in massive baggage trains snaking across the West. If someone was murdered, swindled or taken advantage of it was rarely addressed because the entire infrastructure of where you were living was bound to pack up and leave on a weekly basis. And even then it was unclear exactly how much law even existed in those areas at those times. Ad-hoc martial law was the order of the day and most lawmen in charge of governing the nascent railroad were former Union army officers who ran their camps and enforced their regulations like the war had never ended. Also after the war there were vast supplies of munitions that were now useless, and in many cases obsolete or unpaid for. The Confederacy didn't acknowledge the veracity of US patent laws and throughout the entire war there were dozens if not hundreds of gunsmiths and tinkers making direct copies of Colt guns and revolvers. Thousands of bootleg and knockoff dragoons were made all across the South and Texas, and when the Confederacy lost many of those companies didn't even see any payment they were promised (or were unable to cash their payment in bonds). They were also legally barred from actually selling the guns they had made on a direct open market, lest the perpetually broke Colt company come knocking sensing an easy way to recoup debts (seriously, "barely solvent" describes 99% of Colt's life). All of these guns made it to Mexico and the west, where legality and patent enforcement didn't exist and everyone needed guns desperately. The shortening of distances is what happened immediately after the railroad era ended. You suddenly had the ability to carry people, weapons, supplies and most importantly information across long distances at reasonable cost. Before permanent settlements were concentrated near churches, because they helped facilitate the passage of information through the now developing mail system (1872 is when what we think of as the USPS came into existence). The railroad defined how the territory would be laid out. We now knew where cattle and other resources would be consolidated, how they had to be moved from point A to point B, and exactly where there needed to be resources (roads, towns, church, etc) in between those two points. The rise of the Geological Survey and people like John Powell and Clarence King was slowly mapping and defining the edges of civilization. There was less fortune and unknown to be found and less impetus to push out into the wilds to chance finding riches. Where the railroads ran and how they were arranged also suddenly and abruptly defined the value of land, it's position to the major rail lines and how long it would take cowboys to move cattle or resources from your land to the train now ruled all. This brought with it the "classic" era of cowboy crime. Profit margins were shrinking and cutting off your opponents at the head was now more valuable than ever and so the range wars began. With the railroad laying out a loose map of populations and resources, targeted crime was now more profitable. If you knew a train would be carrying physical money or valuables, you could plan to rob it, and many people did. When people became less transient and focused on maintaining their land and settlements, they became easier to rob. Eventually however, these same factors would breed security. If criminals threatened a town, the rails would let a posse, pinkertons or lawmen show up quickly. Apprehended criminals no longer needed to be transported to jail by hand at great expense as well. Clustering together in organized towns and areas let people become more secure, more easily defend their belongings and communicate better. And eventually the rang wars would close as well, when it became obvious the true solution was capitalism and buyouts. When barbed wire finally began to show up in most places, it rapidly decreased the need for cowboys, vaqueros, guards, cooks and all the other many people you needed to gather in order to run a range operation. Now you needed a few teenagers and a bigass fence. By the start of this time most of the outlaws and cowboys types began to move south, towards Mexico and central America, where the hands of industrialization were decades away. Then you get into what I'll term the revival period. The idea of "the west" has now existed for decades and spread into pop culture, wild west shows, religious revivals, and other things have spread across the nation. So now you have people going to the last far out vestiges of the west who actively desire participating in the myth of the wild west. Criminals, failures, and outcasts of all stripes start wandering into the crevices that modern America forgot, looking for mines, committing crimes and swindles, and doing whatever they want outside of the now ever growing arms of law enforcement. This is the days of Wyatt Earp and other people trying to reconcile the draw of criminals to frontier. It was a revival in many ways, this would be the last time the Native Americans attempted to resist the US government using force. And many of the people who rode with them were in there own way revivalists, Natives who had been westernized and now, under the leadership of people like Sitting Bull, were striking out to reclaim a heritage and return to being true natives. By the Colombian Exhibition the wild west was mostly a stage play, the people who's names had been made famous by it reduced to preforming tricks and gags for massive crowds. After hours the cowboys and indians would gather in tents and by the shores of the lake and play cards, smoke and drink. Even as the last vestiges of native tribes still fought against the government, they had already become Americans and were friends with their former sworn stereotypical enemies. The west would still hold on in many places for much longer, in places Mexico, Idaho, Eastern Oregon, and Manchuria it lasted arguably until WWII
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
I also enjoy stories like that of the Donner Party or the Bone Wars. The Donner Party fascinated me for a long time. I guess it is because I have a lot of (potentially misplaced) admiration for exploration, whether they were successes like, say, Douglas Mawson or Ernest Shackleton or comparative failures like George W. DeLong or the Burke-Wills expedition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
El Estrago Bonito posted:The west would still hold on in many places for much longer, in places Mexico, Idaho, Eastern Oregon, and Manchuria it lasted arguably until WWII  I'm vaguely aware that was a thing, but if you can elaborate on Manchuria, that'd be amazing. Wheat Loaf posted:I also enjoy stories like that of the Donner Party or the Bone Wars. The Donner Party fascinated me for a long time. I guess it is because I have a lot of (potentially misplaced) admiration for exploration, whether they were successes like, say, Douglas Mawson or Ernest Shackleton or comparative failures like George W. DeLong or the Burke-Wills expedition. You should read about the Polaris expedition, it's got everything where everything is incompetence, possible poisoning, strandings on ice floes (with a bonus of taciturn Germans who basically don't get any say in the historiography), and general oddity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Things that were true when the Chicago Cubs won the world series on 14 October 1908: The best thing I saw on Twitter last night regarding this: When the Cubs won the World Series in 1908, women in Illinois weren't allowed to vote. Now, a woman from Illinois is running for president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:You should read about the Polaris expedition, it's got everything where everything is incompetence, possible poisoning, strandings on ice floes (with a bonus of taciturn Germans who basically don't get any say in the historiography), and general oddity. Curiously enough, DeLong was inspired to pursue the Jeannette expedition because he'd been second-in-command of the ship that went to relieve the survivors of the Polaris. The Polaris expedition is one I only know about via Wikipedia, though - I've not gotten to any more detailed histories of it yet. It's sort of cool (for want of a better word) that explorers in the Arctic Circle were still on the lookout for survivors of Franklin's lost expedition well into the late 19th century. You know, not incidentally coming across relics of the expedition, but setting out with that goal as part of their orders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Curiously enough, DeLong was inspired to pursue the Jeannette expedition because he'd been second-in-command of the ship that went to relieve the survivors of the Polaris. The Polaris expedition is one I only know about via Wikipedia, though - I've not gotten to any more detailed histories of it yet. My great-great-granddad was one of those taciturn Germans, so I've got a book or two on the subject (they don't like him).
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:My great-great-granddad was one of those taciturn Germans, so I've got a book or two on the subject (they don't like him). They don't like Charles Francis Hall, you mean? Which books would you recommend in particular?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:They don't like Charles Francis Hall, you mean? No, Frederick Meyer, head dude of the German meteorologists (iirc a US citizen after he left Prussia to go observe what was going on in Mexico as a Lieutenant, got off the boat in NYC and decided to ditch his orders and join the Union army as a meteorologist). And I'll tell the ones I have when I get back home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
xthetenth posted:
Watch The Good, The Bad, and The Weird for an entirely authentic depiction of this era in Manchuria. https://youtu.be/6Tk80iXCspM
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:06
|
|
