|
ArchangeI posted:There is really only so much you can forage. If you are sieging fortified places - and in the setting you describe, most larger settlements would have at least some fortifications, if only to keep the cattle from wandering around at night - you need regular resupply. However, if you think Of course the downside to soldiers who farm for themselves is that they quickly become useless peasants instead of professionals. I can remember a few examples throughout history, the Limitanei in the late Roman Empire I think, some of the Paraguayans in that Ebook someone posted about the War of the Triple Alliance, Spanish troops in colonial Dominican Republic. It's a common last resort for broke rear end states, if you can't pay your men, give them land.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
The theme system worked well enough for the byzantines for a few centuries. The soldiers were of decent quality with decent equipment; things just fell apart due to bad emperors making bad decisions and the constant onslaughts of all their neighbors. Also due to the nobility dismantling the system in order to weaken the military.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:And about poverty and such, it's worth remembering that not all serfs were poor. I've seen a few mentions of serfs being near equal in wealth to their lords. I would enjoy reading more about this if you have any sources at hand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
Military History War Thread II: War. War Never Changes
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 04:12
|
|
Comstar posted:Military History War Thread II: War. War Never Changes Beaten on the top of the last page or the one before it sadly. I too think this thread should remain in Ask And Tell. I'd also like a General History thread for GBS if it ever returns to a more well moderated time in the future.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Beaten on the top of the last page or the one before it sadly. Yeah, same here. The old history thread just had the best random information in it (Fox tossing  ).
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
Military History War Thread II: War! What is good for? Thread Number II. Say it again. My apologies for my bad lurker post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
Military History Thread II: Ceasar crosses the Fulda Gap
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Mans posted:Military History Thread II: Ceasar crosses the Fulda Gap This and PYF Uniform made me laugh. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
Military History Thread II: hitler pls go
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
It can't be too injokey though, then we risk losing people, which is the exact reason we're making a second thread to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
Will we add more posters and their interests/potential topics of contribution or is the list going to be limited to ~massive OP carehavers~, or culled altogether? Sorry for asking en plein publique but I'm not sure anyone is going to look at our document during the next couple of days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 11:12
|
|
|
I know a bit of Pre-Islamic and Early Arab military history, folklore and politics in the Arabian peninsula. A little bit of 16th century Peninsula military make up, and Early/Current Modern GCC military (really terrible with it). Am i legible to be added to the list?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 12:02
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Will we add more posters and their interests/potential topics of contribution or is the list going to be limited to ~massive OP carehavers~, or culled altogether? We can identify people who know a lot and effortpost just as well if they post about it themselves in the thread like everyone else. Edit: Although, if the final draft of the OP will mention how Rodrigo Diaz is wrong about literally everything, I'd like to keep that part. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 12:04
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Frankly, I think identifying certain people in the OP is the wrong idea, in that it'll set up a hierarchy between people who dispense knowledge and people who receive knowledge, whereas what we should be doing is fostering equal discussion. As a person who has followed this thread since its inception but has basically never commented due to having not much beyond a layman's/Wikipedia/paradox games understanding of history, I don't even think that such a list is necessary. The thread can grow organically out of whatever it is you fine folks seed it with, after all, so many years ago Admiral Snackbar started this thread and it became something great despite their disappearance a year or two in. Hell back then I'm not even sure the forums had fully realized the concept of an effortpost yet. In any event, carry on everyone. I just figured as a seldom poster it was time to finally contribute something vaguely useful to this fine thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 12:32
|
|
|
I need to start reading history books again. Any recs on the Great Northern War or Austrian Succession? I like napoleonic and revolutionary poo poo but should probably branch out a little.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I need to start reading history books again. Any recs on the Great Northern War or Austrian Succession? I like napoleonic and revolutionary poo poo but should probably branch out a little. I sort of recently read that pulitzer prize winning biography of Peter the Great that goes into the Northern war in pretty good detail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
rzeszowianin 44 posted:I would enjoy reading more about this if you have any sources at hand. The only book I got right now at hand is Tuchman's A Distant Mirror which is in general a good read. Off the top of my head, the most fundamental thing is that when we're talking about feudal European society, we should keep in mind that there was a whole lot of different forms of feudalism around. In broad terms, you can divide it into three major groups by geography: Western European, Southern European and Eastern European. Southern European was in the middle ages the most stable and probably the most oppressive one around, where social mobility was always limited more than in Western European. Eastern european feudalism was the major outlier since feudalism in the east actually got more oppressive as later on. Western Europe was to some degree moderated by Germanic/Scandinavian influences (most of Scandinavia never had serfdom) and the relation between a feudal lord and his serfs was more or less a contract, where the lord promises to do some stuff in exchange for service. In some cases this was more or less a sham but in many cases it was a genuine mutually profitable relationship, where the lords didn't tax the serfs for all they had. It's also wrong to think of "feudal lord" in the term of some dude living in a castle and riding around on a horse all day. You had that but you also had guys who were almost totally broke and barely able to pay for the arms and the horse they had to provide their own lord. If a serf was prosperous (good land or whatnot), he didn't have to spend money on warhorses and arms but could spend whatever he didn't need himself to hire laborers or generally improve his living standard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I need to start reading history books again. Any recs on the Great Northern War or Austrian Succession? I like napoleonic and revolutionary poo poo but should probably branch out a little. Poltava by Peter Englund is a great book and I'm pretty sure there's an english translation out there. It goes into how the Swedes ended up fighting the war and how the battle at Poltava went down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Poltava by Peter Englund is a great book and I'm pretty sure there's an english translation out there. It goes into how the Swedes ended up fighting the war and how the battle at Poltava went down. Yep: http://www.amazon.com/The-Battle-that-Shook-Europe/dp/1780764766/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1384268270&sr=8-2&keywords=peter+englund The English title is silly and inaccurate (the book focuses almost exclusively on the Swedish side) but I guess the publisher figured that "Poltava" wouldn't ring any bells outside of the countries involved. Alekanderu fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
Military History II: Gay Black Hitler Boogaloo
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Is Gay Black Hitler a reference to an actual discussion that has happened?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Is Gay Black Hitler a reference to an actual discussion that has happened? People were asking stupid "what if" questions, so they were mocked by asking "What if Hitler was gay and black?" And then we actually discussed it, I think the consensus was that he would be interesting enough to be accepted into art school in that case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:People were asking stupid "what if" questions, so they were mocked by asking "What if Hitler was gay and black?"  KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I need to start reading history books again. Any recs on the Great Northern War or Austrian Succession? I like napoleonic and revolutionary poo poo but should probably branch out a little. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:People were asking stupid "what if" questions, so they were mocked by asking "What if Hitler was gay and black?" I think it was a screencap of a fat black woman in a nazi uniform cheerfully declaring that she was playing Hitler like he was meant to be played: as a black lesbian woman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I think it was a screencap of a fat black woman in a nazi uniform cheerfully declaring that she was playing Hitler like he was meant to be played: as a black lesbian woman. And by the way what was the source for that gif? I must see it. And HEGEL/Koesj/whoever's doing the op, you think you could include that index of history threads I posted the other day? People might find it useful. Grand Prize Winner posted:Hey folks! I've put together links for every history thread I can remember or google. I think there are a couple in either D&D or GBS relating to race relations and organized labor--and there was a rather good TFR thread about North Korea, but I can't figure out any keywords to bring 'em up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:And by the way what was the source for that gif? I must see it. We already had a list, but some of the ones you listed weren't in it so im putting em in. Thanks. Also: Jeoh posted:Military History II - War. War never changes. i am not going to include a loving fallout quote Want to keep the in-jokes down, but would like it to be at least a little funny. Maybe Military History 2 1/2: The Smell of Heer Maybe Military History 2: Die Harder Mark 2 of this thread is going to be in this forum, you can stop voting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Military History II: War. War always changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Military History Thread 2: Here Be Dragoons
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Military History Thread 2: Here Be Dragoons I like it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Military History 2: We Are the Very Models of Modern Major-Generals
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Why should it be called MHT Vol. 2, when this isn't Vol. 1 (Probably not even Vol. 2)? If you are making it to attract new people, perhaps you shouldn't be emphasizing that it's a continuation of an established megathread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Why should it be called MHT Vol. 2, when this isn't Vol. 1 (Probably not even Vol. 2)? If you are making it to attract new people, perhaps you shouldn't be emphasizing that it's a continuation of an established megathread. We are doing just that in the post itself though, to stop people from talking about certain... sensitive subjects.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 20:47
|
|
Nenonen posted:Military History Thread 2: Here Be Dragoons Yes. Yes. Yes.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Mans posted:Military History Thread II: Ceasar crosses the Fulda Gap I'm real partial to this one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Military History Thread 2: Here Be Dragoons This one is great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Military History Thread 2: Here Be Dragoons Triple puns are such a rarity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:And by the way what was the source for that gif? I must see it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3NwB9PLxss But for my money, 30 Rock's black Hitler comedy is much better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
edit- I can't find the new thread, so I guess I'll post here?NarcoPolo posted:I also advocate keeping this thread in A/T. The people following Peter the Hermit weren't entirely unwashed masses and I think the research indicates that there was probably more elite involvement that previously thought. For what it's worth, though, while some just hosed off to go a-crusading, IIRC usually there was an official sanction to allow peasantry to take the cross. I'm not sure if lords necessarily got anything from the Church for letting their people go, or if letting their guys massacre the local Jews and invade Muslim territories was just a civic obligation. Foraging did happen, but there was also a lot of logistical work going into the Crusades. Food and money would often be donated by people in Europe and was typically supplied by sea, usually by Italian shipping. Bitching about the Italians not coming through with the supplies pops up more than once. Also, there was another post previously about the Soviets moving their industry east after Barbarossa kicked off. It's several pages back and now I can't find it, and I honestly don't remember what the exact question was, so I'll just shotgun some information about it out and hopefully everybody's cool with that. First, it should be noted they weren't starting entirely from scratch. The first and second 5 Year Plans did include some elements of building industry farther east, and there was some movement of industry east in 1940, though it was still largely empty by that point. Upon being invaded in 1941, the Soviets set up what was called the State Defence Committee (GKO) with Stalin at the head of it. A couple of days later this organisation approved the creation of what was called the "Council of Evacuation under the Council of People's Commisars". This seemed to have been given a huge amount of autonomy, they had to send progress reports back to Moscow, but they were, more or less, empowered to do whatever was necessary. They also established local Councils for Evacuation so that people on-site would be able to get things moving without having to go to the centre Council. Actually moving all that stuff typically happened by rail and they set up massive bases at large railway stations, and there was a special organisation within the Commisariat for Railways whose job was solely to prepare and plan evacuating equipment and workers. Usually enough equipment would be moved to start a sort of shadow factory along with some leading workers. They would then send new people and equipment, who would then get trained by the lead workers in order to start production. A lot of the new workers were women who didn't usually have a lot of industrial experience, but by '42 something like 1,000-1,500 factories were operational. They did leave some factories behind, in order to keep producing while the evacuation was ongoing and a lot of those were over-run by the Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
my dad posted:Triple puns are such a rarity. Heer be Dragoons?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 02:32
|
|
