|
Everyone: "We'll build a wall around our city to keep invaders out." China: "Aha! We'll build a wall along the border to keep invaders out!" Athens:
|
# ? Dec 11, 2020 20:18 |
|
|
# ? Apr 28, 2024 04:04 |
|
Nenonen posted:Everyone: "We'll build a wall around our city to keep invaders out." This is how Chicago's Blue Line works.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2020 20:38 |
|
Platystemon posted:How were people not plotting to overthrow the government while toiling on the wall? I guess the difference is, if you need to desperately build a wall to protect your nation or you need to invent something for the people to do so they don't get any ideas. If the latter, then you can keep the toiling at a level not too rebellion inciting. The people would need to be toiling anyway to get some food in their mouth, either farming or other work. If there is no work available that could be a cause for rebellion, so it's better to invent some work, just don't make it bad enough to cause a rebellion. Even better if you can get something usefullish out of it. And if it's something the workers could few as being for their protection too it could easily have morale boosting efect.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2020 20:45 |
|
people kind of always have a weird conception of fortifications either "working" or "not working" - this came up before in the tower discussion a wall around a city is meant to keep people out and protect your poo poo. a wall along a border is meant to raise the resources required for an enemy to cross it. an enemy may cross the wall but that does not mean the wall was not successful overall.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2020 20:52 |
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:people kind of always have a weird conception of fortifications either "working" or "not working" - this came up before in the tower discussion It also raises the barrier of entry to maybe make your rear end not worth attacking versus the assholes over the next hill who don't even have a moat, just a lovely log palisade.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2020 20:53 |
|
Cessna posted:Stuff, when available, would come through the army's supply system or, for the Wehrmacht, looted from the locals. But you repeat yourself. Re border walls, the Danes had the danevirke. Last used in 1864 but initially built to keep the Franks out, it's apparently got a modern version designed to deter German boar. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danevirke https://www.dw.com/en/denmark-completes-contentious-fence-along-german-border/a-51496704
|
# ? Dec 11, 2020 21:00 |
|
Border walls don't stop people, they stop baggage trains, whether they're supplies going in or loot coming out.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2020 21:04 |
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:people kind of always have a weird conception of fortifications either "working" or "not working" - this came up before in the tower discussion
|
|
# ? Dec 11, 2020 21:36 |
|
They also funnel people. Useful for both pointing trade towards those handy holes in the wall (aka “gates”) where you can tax if and funneling invaders towards areas you prefer to fight them.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2020 21:38 |
|
Weka posted:But you repeat yourself.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2020 22:33 |
|
also walls delay progress so that you have a chance of responding with a significant force, which also becomes part of the aggressor's calculus
|
# ? Dec 11, 2020 23:28 |
|
For that matter, it funnels your scouts/spies as well, making it more convoluted to plan a raid or attack. Not that scouting parties cannot get across the wall, but without horses they are less capable. Rivers are both barriers and transport routes. It is far more efficient to fortify strategic locations along a river and at other geographic chokepoints than to build long walls across plains.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 00:05 |
|
Apparently there was a big wall in Iran built by the Sassasnids.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 00:26 |
|
In the previous thread someone mentioned the Whitworth rifle. Wikipedia says that polygonal rifling predates Whitworth but that it fell out of favor until he seems to have reintroduced it. 1. Did Whitworth create or reintroduce polygonal rifling? 2. If he reintroduced it why did it fall out of favor in the first place?
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 03:13 |
|
White Coke posted:In the previous thread someone mentioned the Whitworth rifle. Wikipedia says that polygonal rifling predates Whitworth but that it fell out of favor until he seems to have reintroduced it. Was this the guy who insisted that this pattern of rifling was superior against the "savage races"?
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 03:15 |
|
Schadenboner posted:Was this the guy who insisted that this pattern of rifling was superior against the "savage races"? I think that was the Puckle gun, which had square bullets for use on non-Christian targets.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 04:22 |
|
Cyrano4747 posted:They also funnel people. Useful for both pointing trade towards those handy holes in the wall (aka “gates”) where you can tax if and funneling invaders towards areas you prefer to fight them. India’s Great Hedge comes to mind.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 04:55 |
|
Chamale posted:I think that was the Puckle gun, which had square bullets for use on non-Christian targets. Why was this a thing?
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 04:58 |
|
Hunt11 posted:Why was this a thing? Square bullets were considered to be more damaging at the time or at least by the inventor.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 05:00 |
|
Hunt11 posted:Why was this a thing? Supposedly they we're supposed to be more damaging and quote "convince the turks of the benefits of christian civilization". Theres very few surviving examples of the weapon that still exist and I doubt half the things written about it are true. It was not successful or mass produced
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 05:02 |
|
I'm not sure this was ever more than a patent appllication--although cube bullets were used for example to clear decks if a ship were being boarded. William the Silent was shot with a gun loaded with cube bullets.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 05:52 |
|
Perhaps, in desperation and bloodthirst, they loaded the cannons with hardtack.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 05:57 |
|
ulmont posted:Square bullets were considered to be more damaging at the time or at least by the inventor. Imagine the power a weaponized Rubik's Cube would possess.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 07:30 |
|
I'm loading all my RPG dice into my musket and see what damage they'll roll!
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 09:52 |
|
The gun the Irish guy in Sharpe had: The loads were pistol balls right? And did the barrels all go off at once or was that selectable? E: Dangling participles like I'm hanging .
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 14:15 |
|
How Finland became Finland Part III Part II here: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3950461&userid=225843#post510599739 Finland as an autonomous grand duchy Finland became a Grand Duchy of Russia with quite a lot of autonomy in 1809, which was not unprecedented, since as parts of Russia Poland and Georgia had arrangements similar to it (but with more repression). Finland got a Senate of its own, whose members were Swedish speaking Finnish nobles nominated by the Emperor for three years at time. The Senate was divided into two departments: economics and justice, and they also in charge of both raising and spending taxes in the duchy. Finland got to spend its own taxes instead of them being funneled to Russia, which was a welcome change and allowed the region to develop during the 19th century. Access to the Russian domestic market and relaxations of legislation related to economic matters together with foreign entrepreneurs and capital from Europe meant that Finland started changing from rural, agrarian backwater to a part of the larger European economy although the change was gradual and Finland industrialized relatively late, and in 1900 three-fourths of the population got their living by tilling the land. The senate ran things day to day in Finland, but there was a five decade gap in calling the Diet and letting the Estates have any influence on how things were done in the duchy, but after the regressive Nicholas I his successor, the more liberal Alexander II called the Diet in 1863, and they started assembling every 3 to 5 years. The Diet of 1863 is going to be important in a bit, since it has a crucial role in Finland actually becoming Finnish instead of remaining Swedish. A Russian Governor-General was nominally the head of the Senate, but since the Senate’s language was Swedish, he usually left them to their own devices and focused on overseeing the Russian soldiers garrisoned in Finland, which was his most important job. Speaking of soldiers, Alexander I discontinued the allotment system which had been in effect under Swedish rule, which made him even more popular, since the burden it placed on farmers was rather notable. Instead, a small core of professional soldiers was raised and paid for by the Russians. However, the allotment system made a comeback during the Crimean war when Russia needed more troops and Finnish coast came under British assault. We call that part of the war the Åland War, and Russia's defeat during it was one of the causes for late 19th century build-up of Russian navy. Interestingly, it is because of 1854-1856 Åland War that the Åland isles remain demilitarized to this day, since it was one of the conditions Britain demanded for peace treaty, and it stuck. In 1881 Finland got conscription-based army of its own of about five and half thousand, which was organized into separate units, where the career officers spoke Russian and Swedish, the NCOs spoke Swedish of Finnish, and bulk of the grunts spoke Finnish. If that sounds impractical, it’s because it was. In addition, there usually was between 10 000 and 20 000 Russian soldiers garrisoned in the duchy. Finnish troops served abroad in Russian wars, but they fought in their own units, with their own officers leading, which was not always appreciated by Russian career officers. Incidentally, Finnish national archives has recordings of the recollections of some Finnish veterans of Turkish war of 1877-78 publicly available, recorded in 1937. I should probably listen to them one of these days. The Finnish army as a separate force was abolished in 1901 for reasons I am covering in part IV. The capital of Finland was switched from Turku (Åbo) to Helsinki in 1812, which was much smaller but a lot closer to Russia and farther away from Stockholm. When there was a major fire in Turku in 1827, its university was also moved to Helsinki (both later had their own universities) because the Russians felt that they needed to keep an eye of student movements and possible new ideas that might threaten its rule. Things weren’t all sunshine and puppies. Finland was ravaged by the British navy during the Crimean war, and there was a very bad famine in 1866-68, which killed over 150 000 people out of a population of about 1.8 million. On the plus side, the state started to modernize Finland in earnest after the Years of Hunger and a railroad connecting Helsinki and St Petersburg was finished in 1870 and there were a lot of improvements (steam-powered machinery, new breeds of cattle more suitable for the cold north, etc.) made to agriculture to avoid such a catastrophe in the future. Despite these efforts, Finland never became self-sufficient in food, which would bite us in the rear end during both World Wars. Finland got its own currency, “markka” in 1865, and foreign trade restrictions were removed in 1868, and guild system was abolished the same year. The Russian Empire saw Finland as a “window to the west” and also a test laboratory for new economic policies, and did its very best to attract foreign capital and entrepreneurs to Finland, which led to the birth of Finnish wood industry in the second half of the 19th century. Finland industrialized and the cities grew, but ultimately the region remained primarily agrarian one for a lot longer. This had the effect of creating a new working class in Finland and chipping away at the old Estates of the Realm since most people were technically members of no estate. Later the working class would organize and become a powerful political force in Finland, but that comes later, with a political party founded at the turn of the century. Awakening of the Finnish national spirit After separating from Sweden, the people in the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland gradually started to formulate ideas about a separate Finnish people, who had their own history and national characteristics. "Swedes we are no longer, Russians we do not want to become, let us therefore be Finns", were the words of the “father of Finnish nationalism” Adolf Ivar Arwidsson, who actually spoke the credo in Swedish, since it was his mother tongue. Russian authorities tolerated the idea as long as it had no political aspirations of independence, since it could be used to further reinforce the wedge between Sweden and Finland. Finnish nationalism mostly expressed itself as national romanticism through art, literature and music, since the Finns had observed the Polish rebellions getting crushed and thought that there was no way of resisting Russian dominance. Interestingly, most early Finnish nationalists spoke and wrote in Swedish. For example, the national poet J.L. Runeberg was pessimistic about Finnish ever becoming the language of literature and poetry, and thought that the language of science, culture and economy should remain Sweden. Not all agreed, and for example, Elias Lönnrot’s national epic Kalevala, which was collection of mythic poetry in Finnish, directly challenged this view. While Russian authorities encouraged the Finns to think themselves separate people from the Swedes and allowed the publication of art and poetry, they also imposed censorship on political texts, and closely supervised the university, since they did not want the dangerous ideas of liberalism and socialism spreading to their backyard. The struggle over language In 1860s, about 80 to 85% of Finns spoke Finnish as their first language and the rest spoke Swedish. Swedish however was the official language used in education and government, which meant that you either studied Swedish or resigned yourself to never reaching any significant position in society. Johan Vilhelm Snellman was a originally Swedish-speaking Finnish writer, politician and journalist who did more for Finnish language than anyone else. He had ambitions of academic career, but he was seen as potentially dangerous radical by Senate and had to resign himself to becoming the principal of a secondary school in one of the smaller and remote towns. He didn’t give up though and kept hoping that Finnish would eventually become a proper language of culture, politics and art, and that the Swedish-speakers would voluntarily give up on Swedish and start using Finnish. When Czar Alexander II summoned the estates for Diet in 1863, Snellman took the opportunity to convince the Czar to sign the Language Act which officially made Finnish equal with Swedish in all official contexts. The law stated that the transition period would be 20 years, but angry Swedish-speakers did their best to sabotage it, so it took more like forty years. The issue over language led to the birth of the first political parties of Finland: Fennomans and Svecomans. Fennomans changed their surnames to more Finnish-sounding ones and did their best to promote Finnish as language, founding Finnish-speaking schools and publishing literature and newspapers in Finnish. They were popular among the Lutheran clergy and farmers. Swecomans were keen on the racial theories of day and espoused the idea that Finland had two races: a culture-producing, superior, Swedish-speaking race, and a culture-receiving, Finnish-speaking lower race. The superior race should therefore lead and the rest should fall in line and recognize their betters. They were popular among old nobility who had established themselves in government and senate and did not want to lose any of their privileges and were distrustful of new ideas. There were also liberals, who were basically centrists, who were for bilingual Finland, but old man Snellman dissed them so bad in the 1880s they got pissed and joined the Svecomans (not a hyperbole, it actually happened). Russians, by and large, did not care that much, but the language issue could keep the Finns divided among themselves and distance them from Sweden, so there was official support for improving the lot of Finnish language. At that point Russia was mostly concerned for Finland remaining pacified and loyal, although there was a growing discontent over the fact that the bureaucracy of the Grand Duchy was pretty much closed to ethnic Russians, and some annoyance over the fact the Finland had its own postal service and separate customs between Finland and Russia proper. Many ambitious young Finnish men learned Russian and entered either the army or the civil service. Most famous example is, of course, Carl Gustaf Mannerheim, of whom we’ll hear more later. ----- That was part III. Next time I will cover the Russification period, Finland during the outbreak of World War and the Declaration of independence. Part V will finally be cover the civil war and the aftermath. Questions, comments and criticism welcome, and yes, I am aware that this post didn't have that much to do do with actual MilHist. Also, I am summarizing a lot here, in the interests of restricting the length of these entries and to try to keep them from bogging down. Warden fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Dec 12, 2020 |
# ? Dec 12, 2020 14:20 |
|
Nenonen posted:I'm loading all my RPG dice into my musket and see what damage they'll roll!
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 14:32 |
|
If they were d4s it would be piercing, though? Goddamn do I hate those fuckers.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 14:36 |
|
Warden posted:The Russian Empire saw Finland as a “window to the west” and also a test laboratory for new economic policies, and did its very best to attract foreign capital and entrepreneurs to Finland, which led to the birth of Finnish wood industry in the second half of the 19th century. What did the Empire do to make this happen?
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 14:55 |
|
ChubbyChecker posted:What did the Empire do to make this happen? Mostly relax the incredibly restrictive and old-fashioned laws and regulations. For example: - they allowed joint stock companies to be founded in the Grand Duchy of Finland and invited foreign entrepreneurs to country, in some cases granting them monopolies, for example one company got the sole right to brew and sell beer in Helsinki in 1819. Finland had huge forest reserves, and very cheap labor thanks to surplus population from the countryside. - founded/allowed founding of banks in Finland starting in 1823 - allowed the use of steam-powered lumbermills in 1857 and removed the quotas and restrictions on how much wood they could chop in 1861 - previously only certain towns were allowed to conduct foreign trade in specified amounts, but this was repealed 1866 - Finnish currency moved from silver standard to gold standard in 1877 - guilds were abolished in in 1868 and complete freedom of establishment was passed in 1879 Finland had separate legislation and laws to Russia proper, but no laws could be passed without the Emperor's consent. It wasn't unusual for Russia to try something in Finland first and see what happened. They also started to build a railroad network in Finland and also built the Saimaa channel in 1856 to connect most of central Finland to Viipuri and St Petersburg via waterways which boosted trade and transportation. Russian Empire was facing a lot of criticism in the west due its backwardness, which led to abolition of serfdom in 1861 in Russia proper, and the comparatively light-handed treatment and economic development of Finland was something they tried to use as an counter-argument. Warden fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Dec 12, 2020 |
# ? Dec 12, 2020 15:33 |
Schadenboner posted:The gun the Irish guy in Sharpe had: The loads were pistol balls right? And did the barrels all go off at once or was that selectable? The Nock gun? All the barrels went off at once. Part of the problem is this is the recoil of SEVEN MUSKETS GOING OFF AT ONCE and was not comfortable to fire at all.
|
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 16:09 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go Two hours and twenty minutes long but if you watch it on Youtube it has links in the description to the beginning of each section
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 16:24 |
|
GotLag posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go Could you give a little background on this guy?
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 16:58 |
|
SeanBeansShako posted:The Nock gun? .46 was a pistol cartridge so it wasn't quite so bad as say, seven .69 barrels but that's kind of semantics - it was deeply unpleasant
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 18:46 |
I wonder now if it was possible if a Nock gun could have been modified at the time to have selective fire?
|
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 19:01 |
|
It had a single flintlock so not without wildly reimagining it. You could make a version that was essentially a bunch of separate muskets glued together but I think you are pretty severely limited by the technology of the time since a flintlock doesn't work unless the pan stays roughly on the top facing up. . Later on, once you have cap and ball cartridges, I think it would be doable since multiple hammers connected/disconnected to a trigger pull is a lot easier.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 19:05 |
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:It had a single flintlock so not without wildly reimagining it. You could make a version that was essentially a bunch of separate muskets glued together The Musketron.
|
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 19:06 |
|
PeterCat posted:Could you give a little background on this guy? Good and well-researched long-form videos dunking on bad opinions espoused by right-wingers typically, though he also posts his own *terrible* opinions on Twitter e: also haven't watched the video myself so can't comment on it as of yet Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Dec 12, 2020 |
# ? Dec 12, 2020 19:35 |
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Good and well-researched long-form videos dunking on bad opinions espoused by right-wingers typically, though he also posts his own *terrible* opinions on Twitter Let me guess: the Bomb was not justified due to reasons?
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 20:59 |
|
|
# ? Apr 28, 2024 04:04 |
|
PeterCat posted:Let me guess: the Bomb was not justified due to reasons? It's secretly a debunking of the claims popular media and awful shithouses like PragerU often push forth regarding the use of the bombs. The tl;dr is that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified, the bombing did play a role in getting Imperial Japan to surrender (Shaun posits that the bombings also gave Imperial Japan a scapegoat to pin blame on rather than their military's performance). Japan would've surrendered without the bombing but it certainly accelerated events. The main thing the video takes time to debunk is that popular sentiment the bombs were justified to save American lives and that Imperial Japan surrendered to save the lives of Japanese people. It goes through how the actions of Truman and co. had various concerns in mind and the lives of American soldiers were not a key motivation. It also goes through how much the Allies knew of Japan's desire to surrender and how stuff like the final draft of the Potsdam Declaration dropping any mention of the imperial household (one of the writers of the declaration wrote that it was in a previous draft, along with the Soviets signing it) being one of the key factors in prolonging the war because though the hardliners and moderates in the Japanese leadership disagreed on things, they both agreed that the throne be maintained. Many US leaders who were more familiar with Japan and had influence on Truman and co. urged them to soften the stance on unconditional surrender. Shaun can't really pin down Truman and co.'s motivation but suspects it's due to popularity at home because of the anti-Japanese rhetoric that had been stirred up for years, and didn't want to be seen as taking a step back.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 21:35 |