|
PittTheElder posted:Speaking of central Europe though, did Hey Guns eat a ban or something? I feel like I haven't seen him post in ages. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:His enemies had already tried it on with Tukhachevsky in 1930 with some trumped-up coup plot charges that were discredited, so he was definitely on some Lists when the environment was sufficiently developed to support purging enemies from the Party / earth. Wow, his enemies waited 90 years for the proper conditions, that's some impressive dedication to a forums enemy
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 08:28 |
|
|
Yeah, well, we all know he was counterrevolutionary as all hell
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 16:41
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I wound up having a long discussion with a historical fighting enthusiast yesterday and I'm curious how true/well sourced some of the stuff she said was. I don't know anything about her academic background but she's a brilliant mixed martial artist and also seems very passionate about recreating old styles and techniques, so that's about all I have to go on for her credentials. This is totally wrong. Many European fencing manuals of the period where we actually start having lots of them (so late medieval/early modern) are written with at least partly civilian contexts in mind. Civilians went around armed all the time as well, and they weren't going to be wearing armor all the time. Even when just looking at armored fighting techniques, a lot of that is basically wrestling, which could be used unarmored as well. If you're good at putting someone in a chokehold, you're not going to stop doing that if the other guy doesn't have armor on. All of this business about European martial arts being "powerful but clumsy" is some pretty outdated bullshido as well. Every martial art is going to be training to do their techniques powerfully and quickly. If someone is taking big wild swings, that's probably just them loving up and being out of control, not the goal of the system. You're not trading strength for speed like it's a video game. Modern fencing also doesn't have anything to do with armored fighting techniques. By the time the original systems that would evolve into modern fencing (like foil/smallsword, French dueling epees, cav saber) started to became more codified in the late 18th/19th century, armor was mostly gone from European battlefields.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 17:05
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Beria was pure evil, it's almost hard to believe he was an actual dude. But there is just something about Vasily Blokhin which is just mind-numbingly frightening to me. For those unitiated, the executions that comprised the Katyn massacre were almost all carried out in person by one guy. He was that guy. Having never heard of this dude before, I wonder if he was just a psychopath, or if he was like Mike "the Irishman" Sheehan: learned from a young age to shut down his emotions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 17:12
|
|
|
Tukhachevsky had also: 1. Been a POW of the Germans in WWI 2. Been part of the Soviet team that worked with Weimar Germany on the joint tank project (The Germans made a secret information and technology sharing agreement in the 20s where new German weapon designs and tactics would be developed in the Soviet Union as part of a way to get around Versailles.) 3. Had, after the Nazis came to power, been part of a Soviet delegation sent to Paris and London to discuss the possibility of a defensive pact against Germany. Surely all innocent events.....OR, is it possible that as early in the First World War, the German imperialists had inculcated Tukhachevsky towards their way of thinking. Then, Tukhachevsky, under Trotsky's direction as head of the Red Army, used these joint weapons projects to become an agent of the Germans. Then, finally, in 1936, after Hitler had come to power, as part of the culmination of Trotsky's and Tukhachevsky's plans, he arranged for himself to be part of the delegation, for a dual purpose, both to sabotage the talks with the French and the British, and to get hold of Trotsky and his German masters to transmit to them important information about the Red Army and the other Trotskyite sympathizers and agents in the Soviet Union. It's all very logical, Comrades. His guilt is clear. <Walks away in a vyshinskyly manner.>
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 17:13
|
|
|
And it's not like Europe was devoid of open-handed martial arts. Wrestling has been practiced by soldiers for thousands of years and utilized in hand-to-hand combat as well as for sport.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
Siivola posted:The boxers in the martial arts thread might have a solid take. My immediate response was "catch wrestling" which she acknowledged was very important in the development of modern MMA, but that it wasn't based on any sort of combat-focused martial art. Rather, like boxing, it developed as a spectator sport. I honestly don't know that much about the history of European wrestling but I'm very curious if there was a European equivalent to Shuai jiao. Also I don't know how/if that post came off as being Asian/Japanese fetish but that definitely was not the intent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
bewbies posted:My immediate response was "catch wrestling" which she acknowledged was very important in the development of modern MMA, but that it wasn't based on any sort of combat-focused martial art. Rather, like boxing, it developed as a spectator sport. I honestly don't know that much about the history of European wrestling but I'm very curious if there was a European equivalent to Shuai jiao. Wrestling was both a sport and a way of fighting in combat. Especially if you're fighting armored opponents with weapons that can't harm them through armor (like swords), it's vital to know how to take someone down in a fight. Herodotus in his Histories specifically calls out Hermolycus, son of Euthoenus, as the best individual fighter in the Battle of Mycale because he was a skilled pankration wrestler. This continued through the Early Modern period where you would practice both serious self-defense and a sporting equivalent that worked within a rule set. There may not be strictly written manuals with diagrams for everything in Europe and on the Mediterranean dating back thousands of years, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a thing. It's not like Asian martial arts are immune to this either. Many martial arts disciplines cycle through being mostly for serious combat or mostly for sport depending on the area and time period as appropriate. I'd argue that most people who learn karate or Taekwondo outside military and police training are going to be learning a sporterized version of the discipline for use in competitions or casual self-defense rather than warfare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I’m going say a lot of that is suspect even if parts are true (which I don’t know, just making a charitable assumption) like modern marital arts stemming from Asian influences. I think it's plausible that China with its centralized authority might have been able to suppress weapon ownership or carrying or armor wearing to the point that organizations without the official authority to be armed would have to start figuring out alternatives. That's just me guessing though. I do remember reading a weird story about an assassination attempt on the Chinese emperor where after it failed, the court ran around for a while trying to subdue the guy because none of them were allowed to be armed in the emperor's chambers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 17:43
|
|
|
Grenrow posted:You're not trading strength for speed like it's a video game. You aren't? I hear this all the time from my fencing coach - that is, I'm trying to be be strong when I should be fast, gripping the weapon tight and using muscle slows you down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
bewbies posted:My immediate response was "catch wrestling" which she acknowledged was very important in the development of modern MMA, but that it wasn't based on any sort of combat-focused martial art. Rather, like boxing, it developed as a spectator sport. chitoryu12 posted:I'd argue that most people who learn karate or Taekwondo outside military and police training are going to be learning a sporterized version of the discipline for use in competitions or casual self-defense rather than warfare. Hell, back in 1555 Qi Jiguang dismissed unarmed combat as useless for the battlefield in his book Jixiao Xinshu. Edit: Unrelated, here's an absolutely amazing illustration from Nicolaes Petter's "grappling for bouncers" book from 1674: 
Siivola fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Sep 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:23
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I think it's plausible that China with its centralized authority might have been able to suppress weapon ownership or carrying or armor wearing to the point that organizations without the official authority to be armed would have to start figuring out alternatives. The periods in China’s history where it had the sort of centralized, powerful government to even begin to think about disarming the populace are far and few between compared to the periods where it’s not. Also it’s impossible to disarm peasants to the point where you could fight them bare handed. Scythes, threshers, butchering tools - the basic implements of farming are often pretty easy to turn into a weapon. Not great against a fully kitted out soldier but effective as gently caress against someone trying to use their Kung fu against your scythe. And that’s before we get into poo poo like “large sticks” and “large sticks that we whittled a point onto.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
Entirely disarming the peasantry is unfeasible, but disallowing weapons in some relatively large but controlled area like a city seems possible. I was thinking a lot more smaller scale since the original claim was talking about just policing instead of outright suppressing revolts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I think it's plausible that China with its centralized authority a truly odd read on five thousand years of history
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
Y'all need to read Meir Shahar's The Shaolin Monastery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
It's an interesting question what to put into a course to give untrained people simple tools to be able to defend themselves hand to hand and how these looked like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhUdTeo7gYA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWSLXXdg9Bw
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
Power Khan posted:It's an interesting question what to put into a course to give untrained people simple tools to be able to defend themselves hand to hand and how these looked like haha, pro-clicks
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:That's just me guessing though. I do remember reading a weird story about an assassination attempt on the Chinese emperor where after it failed, the court ran around for a while trying to subdue the guy because none of them were allowed to be armed in the emperor's chambers. Not just any emperor, the first emperor! In fact when he was still just a mere king; the assassination attempt was one of the last ditch efforts on the part of his enemies to prevent the Qin unification. The record of it actually paints a hilarious image, for an assassination anyway: Wikipedia posted:Jing Ke approached King Zheng [Qin Shi Huang's name before he became emperor] and politely presented the map scroll. When the King Zheng unrolled the map, Jing Ke immediately seized the revealed dagger, grabbed the king's clothes and attacked him, who somehow managed to back away from the initial thrust by tearing off a sleeve in the process. While King Zheng fled from his attacker on foot, he attempted to draw his own sword hanging from his belt, but was unable to do so while running desperately as it was a very long ceremonial sword. None of the other Qin officials within the vicinity were armed and able to stop Jing Ke, and the guards were all stationed outside the palace and were unable to immediately reach the scene. In the confusion Jing Ke began to close in on the king, who struggled to get away from the assassin by circling behind a pillar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Not just any emperor, the first emperor! In fact when he was still just a mere king; the assassination attempt was one of the last ditch efforts on the part of his enemies to prevent the Qin unification. hah Who's Qin Wuyang?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Speaking of central Europe though, did Hey Guns eat a ban or something? I feel like I haven't seen him post in ages. Not banned, but he hasn't posted since July ChubbyChecker posted:Who's Qin Wuyang? A co-conspirator of Jing Ke who was so nervous he couldn't even walk right, and the guards wouldn't even let him in the room
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:The Deep Battle doctrine was most popular with and championed by higher-ups in the officer corps, which were the primary target of Stalin's purges, as he saw them as dangerous to his regime. To discredit those officers, Deep Battle as a doctrine was thrown out of favour, and it's focus on mechanized forces dismissed as anti-revolutionary and bourgeois. Instead, the Red Army would rely on the revolutionary chutzpah of the common soldier to defeat the enemy by force of revolutionary fervor. As the creator of the doctrine, Tukhachevsky, by design, became a prime target of the purges, and was accused of leading a planned "Bonapartist" coup by a clique of senior officers. I think Vladimir Triandafillov and Georgii Samoilovich Isserson were the primary writers on Deep Battle, with Alexander Svechin and Nikolai Varfolomeev having significant input as well. Tukhachevsky personal additions to the theory of Deep Battle are rather limited. An ambitious man like Tukhachevsky was attracted to new ideas/tech but this sometimes led to real bad decisions, such as becoming obsessed with recoil-less rifles. After the purges it also remained as a major component of Soviet doctrine but would be referred to obliquely as naming it directly was rarely a good idea for one's health. Corvinus fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Sep 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
Sitting discourteously to own the king
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:If you want a one book, check out Heart of Europe. Same author, slightly newer, and covering the whole span of the empire. I have a copy but haven't read it. I have read Heart of Europe and it's a good history book for the most part and understandable by a dumb lay person like myself, but I liked Europe's Tragedy better because I retained more of what I read and the information was presented better. Heart of Europe might be better on a second read through, but I've gotten really lazy in the last two years. So, I would say that if you're interested in the HRE as an institution read Heart of Europe because things like law, taxation, dynasties, and how they changed over time are all in it (once the Hapsburgs take over it gets less interesting). But if you want to read about one of the most interesting point in time in the HRE then read Europe's Tragedy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 22:46
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:I think Vladimir Triandafillov and Georgii Samoilovich Isserson were the primary writers on Deep Battle, with Alexander Svechin and Nikolai Varfolomeev having significant input as well. Tukhachevsky personal additions to the theory of Deep Battle are rather limited. An ambitious man like Tukhachevsky was attracted to new ideas/tech but this sometimes led to real bad decisions, such as becoming obsessed with recoil-less rifles. Speaking of Isserson, I've started reading his Evolution of Operational Art based on a recommendation from this thread. What are some other, similar texts I could find in English? I'm mostly interested in nation-specific doctrines in the 20th century, but stuff from earlier periods would be interesting too. I'm also reading Winning a Future War by Norman Friedman (also from this thread) and would enjoy something similar, whether it's naval doctrine or just the history of how military organizations evolved between wars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 23:17
|
|
|
Kangxi posted:Not banned, but he hasn't posted since July 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
Power Khan posted:It's an interesting question what to put into a course to give untrained people simple tools to be able to defend themselves hand to hand and how these looked like Expected this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnjYeHBWvKA
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
Kangxi posted:Not banned, but he hasn't posted since July Some regular posters seem to mostly hang in the discord these days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
Preamble - I'm an MMA dork with quite a bit of training experience, and I have some academic credentials on top of this. I've seen a few academic presentations on 18th century boxing too. TL;DR is that your friend is not entirely wrong, but he's not so far from wrong for me to say that he's right.bewbies posted:I wound up having a long discussion with a historical fighting enthusiast yesterday and I'm curious how true/well sourced some of the stuff she said was. I don't know anything about her academic background but she's a brilliant mixed martial artist and also seems very passionate about recreating old styles and techniques, so that's about all I have to go on for her credentials. This is something that gets tossed around a lot and has for some time, but it turns out that it's basically a half truth. Wyoming has recently started to sanction bare-knuckle boxing matches and many experienced fighters are able to head hunt and KO opponents without breaking their hands. Meanwhile, Floyd Mayweather has been known to break his own hands wearing full-weight competition boxing gloves, and he's not known as a hard puncher. Some fighters are better at taking punches on the crown of the head - allegedly Nick Diaz broke both of BJ Penn's hands like that (4 oz gloves). Honestly I've hosed my own hands up once or twice with big rear end puffy 16oz gloves on. The gloves make a difference but less than having toughened up your own hands and having good punching technique. If we put 4 oz gloves (mma gloves) on someone who has no experience and told them to go hit a heavy bag as hard as they could, they'd probably hurt themselves. At the point I'm at, with years of practice, I can tear into a heavy bag bareknuckle and I'm fine so long as I don't cut the skin on my hands. quote:Claim 1: the majority of Asian mixed martial arts all developed from China; their open hand techniques were best suited for things like "police work" and or controlling peasant populations, where one might have to subdue a large number of unarmored opponents. This came to us in the form of modern martial arts like karate and kung fu, and entered the MMA world through Pancrase (which was basically something close to modern MMA but with no closed fist strikes). Many Japanese martial arts claim descent from Bodidharma. Whether this is true who the gently caress knows. Martial arts are full of liars and braggarts, and they always have been, and they're always trying to one-up each other on being the most ancient and secret. None of this can be tracked because everyone used to be super secretive. Really it all goes back to 19th-20th century nationalism. Look at Muay Thai though - from what I know it doesn't claim Chinese heritage, though its history does have a nationalist legend. All of the Okinawan martial arts claim to be anti-authoritarian in their origins. The other thing to consider is that there are only a finite number of ways to attack someone. In my experience competition rules have a greater influence on how a martial art looks than anything. Regarding "pancrase" as being the channel through which asian martial arts came into MMA? That's not true. There were pancrase fighters at UFC 1, and there were Kempo Karate guys. Japanese martial arts came to the West largely in the first half of the 20th century, with a gigantic resurgance following WW2. quote:Claim 3: Boxing more or less died with antiquity and didn't resurface until the early modern period. Boxing differs from most other martial arts in that it was a sport from the get-go; it didn't evolve from real-world situations. The old-timey boxing stance ("Irish stance") was a direct response to boxers breaking their hands repeatedly on their opponents' heads; it basically conceded blows to the head/face in exchange for greater range and flexibility in grappling/clinching. Once boxers started wearing gloves, protecting the head and face became cornerstone of defense. From what I understand, Greek Boxing was different from modern boxing. The version of boxing that came out of 18th century England, credited to Daniel Mendoza, is based largely on fencing footwork. If you look at illustrations of old boxers they're not doing a bad job of guarding their faces with their hands - their hands are up at chin level but away from the face to protect from straight punches, and they'd defend hooks with head movement. Edwin Haislet's boxing manual (available for free online) has some about this. quote:All this was basically to argue essentially that the gloves mixed martial artists wear sort of pollute the historical accuracy of the sport; if they didn't wear gloves we'd see a lot more open hand techniques or more people using stuff like the Irish boxing stance. Some fighters have used open handed slaps. Go watch Bas Rutten fights from early Pancrase, where closed fists were not allowed. Go watch Bare Knuckle bouts (BKFC). Nick Diaz's striking style has been compared to Daniel Mendoza's. The 4 oz gloves don't make that much of a difference in striking. You'll see less of a difference between BK boxing and MMA than between MMA and boxing or MMA and K1 or Glory kickboxing. The big puffy gloves that the pure striking sports wear make a bigger difference to stance and hand position. Some really high level kickboxers have come to MMA and tried to shell up with the gloves to protect themselves and the thin little gloves split the guard and that's all she wrote. gently caress, go watch some Lethwei. That's bareknuckle with headbutts allowed. Their hand position is relatively similar to that you see in MMA. The reason that the old boxers kept their hands out like that was for defending double leg shots. On the pre-queensbury rules, it was legal to throw your opponent to the ground. In some of the old rulesets, that counted as a knockdown.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Some regular posters seem to mostly hang in the discord these days. Which is unfortunate, since I'm in too many goddamn discords already and don't have time to hang there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
Yeah I also find Discord far less convenient than forums. I am truly a grampa.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:
I love some classic Bas Rutten and I was going to comment on his open hand strike stuff. Also, I have to share this poster he sold right after 9/11. One of my prized weird possessions. (It was an emotional time.) 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
Things I forgot as I was hurried to post - Pancrase was pro wrestling and Japanese pro wrestling borrows from European wrestling heavily, as does judo. Gloves mostly prevent cuts, not ko or broken hands. Bas Rutten has a self defense video for the attacker and it's hilarious
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:That’s doubtful. He killed 7000 at Katyn alone, plus whatever he did while working on the purges. That’s a LOT. The Germans also had people working as teams and rotated shooters, as well as trying to keep the killers from doing too many major actions in a row. This was for mental health reasons - they recognized that people involved in this poo poo tended to have breakdowns. The extermination camps were also mechanized partially for this reason. A significant part of the push to gas was concern over the affect the killing was having on the men doing it. Guards in non-extermination camps could have had really high body counts but I doubt as high as this guy. ...given his past experience with executions, it almost seems like that could’ve been a horrifying attempt to spare the mental health of the guys under his command. B: Nope, can’t do it, last time a quarter of my men shot themselves afterwards. A: Stalin says do it, figure it out. B: ...blyat. Go get my briefcases full of guns. I’ll do it myself.  A: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:
Gonna need a link for that friend
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Preamble - I'm an MMA dork with quite a bit of training experience, and I have some academic credentials on top of this. I've seen a few academic presentations on 18th century boxing too. TL;DR is that your friend is not entirely wrong, but he's not so far from wrong for me to say that he's right. That's really interesting, thanks! Do you know of any good books on 18th century boxing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
Grenrow posted:That's really interesting, thanks! Do you know of any good books on 18th century boxing? I don't offhand but there's a doctoral dissertation by a guy named Phil McKnight which had a chapter on 18th century boxing and his bibliography would be where I'd start. Here's bas's video https://youtu.be/mosX7L25HV8
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:...given his past experience with executions, it almost seems like that could’ve been a horrifying attempt to spare the mental health of the guys under his command. It wasn’t like he was randomly thrust in to the role from an ordinary unit, or even an ordinary Cheka/NKVD unit. He was noted even as a Chekist for his skill at wetwork, came to the attention of Stalin, and was notable enough that he was put in charge of a special secret wetwork group within the NKVD. He enjoyed and was good at his job, which was killing people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 01:45
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah I also find Discord far less convenient than forums. I am truly a grampa. i find it less convenient to make long form posts on discord, and its harder to keep track of old posts. I've written enough posts on in undying megathreads now I can mostly coast along just by c/ping one from a couple years back into new threads. too lazy to save them in a word file or anything like that -_-
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 02:02
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:It wasn’t like he was randomly thrust in to the role from an ordinary unit, or even an ordinary Cheka/NKVD unit. He was noted even as a Chekist for his skill at wetwork, came to the attention of Stalin, and was notable enough that he was put in charge of a special secret wetwork group within the NKVD. He enjoyed and was good at his job, which was killing people. Well yeah, if your organization does messy horrifying work that breaks peoples’ brains, being a total sociopath who gives 0 fucks about killing people really helps your career prospects.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 08:28 |
|
|
It's surprising given the possible defenestration of D'Annunzio that HEY GUNS didn't show up. I thought they had a knack for popping out when that's mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 03:56
|
|
