/his/ - History

annunaki

>>23248

He was a big guy, of course.

>>20846

For you

>>20846

Uhh, you don't get to bring olives.

They were going to die eventually, but their empire lasted extremely well, with no real shrinking or collapses until it's very end.

>>23659

It was unique in that many of its towns and villages had no walls or fortifications for most of its history. It was a sign that the Ottoman interior was fairly stable and peaceful despite the intensity of later 19th century nationalistic revolts. You don't see that sort of thing outside of England very often if at all. It's somewhat remarkable how an empire of that size stagnated with minimal loss of internal peace and stability or almost no major loss of territory to outside powers or revolts until last century of its existence. And it wasn't for a lack of effort on the part of its neighbors and local revolutionaries either, several attempts at stoking insurrection by Venetians, Russians, and Austrians all somehow failed over the centuries, and it was Muslim Turkish Anatolia which saw the greater number of threatening revolts.

>>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

>>The stagnation and decline, Stephen Lee argues, was relentless after 1566, interrupted by a few short revivals or reform and recovery. The decline gathered speed so that the Empire in 1699 was, "a mere shadow of that which intimidated East and West alike in 1566."[41] Although there are dissenting scholars, most historians point to "degenerate Sultans, incompetent Grand Viziers, debilitated and ill-equipped armies, corrupt officials, avaricious speculators, grasping enemies, and treacherous friends."[42] The main cause was a failure of leadership, as Lee argues the first 10 sultans from 1292 to 1566, with one exception, had done quite well. The next 13 sultans from 1566 to 1703, with two exceptions, were lackadaisical or incompetent rulers, says Lee.[43] In a highly centralized system, the failure at the center proved fatal. A direct result was the strengthening of provincial elites who increasingly ignored Constantinople. Secondly the military strength of European enemies grew stronger and stronger, while the Ottoman armies and arms scarcely improved.[44][45] Finally the Ottoman economic system grew distorted and impoverished, as war caused inflation, world trade moved in other directions, and the deterioration of law and order made economic progress difficult.[46]

>>23772

>Cage system caused NEET sultans which is disaster.

/thread

>>23541

crimean tatars didn't defend the bridge and this is in 1600's

>>23540

>And horse archers not only had smaller reach because they couldn't just aim while riding a horse

nomads invented stirrup as far as I know, and thier horses dferent from european ones. it runs far more stable but their size smaller

>The Balkan

nomads arrived balkans even croita as far as I know

also horse archers used for lure and outmanouver which is fatally important for battles

>For two reasons:

-the WRE was in a really bad shape

-Attila arrived with a coalition of Germanics, which were infantrymen.

yes wre was bad shape but attila also had victorias agains ERE and forced them pay tribtue, but it is easir to win over more weak statse so that's why he probaby marched west

Also I know attila recruited germanics but how about their numbers? Did he really relied them?

>>23544

You could block an entire pass from which no one would ever pass. Just look at Italy, if you blocked a few passes it's a geological fortress, and the nomads sure couldn't pull an Annibal Barca. Nomadic tribes rule in the steppes because they can go around, but you sure can escalate a mountain.

Also the fort's whole purpose was that, get the peasants in, wait that the horsefuckers leave to pillage more shit and start cultivating.

>You except the Mongols, but the Manchus were another nomad tribe who overran the fortresses of China. Manchu siege tactics are well documented.

But one of the reasons why Qing didn't fall as a dinasty was because of the Han defectors who were generals and produced guns for the Qing and managed the political and social situation during the reign and the fact that Ming was a rebellion fuckfest.

The wall of China was useless because the Ming simply didn't use it.

>>23548

>crimean tatars didn't defend the bridge and this is in 1600's

They were a vanguard cavalry regiment.

>nomads invented stirrup as far as I know, and thier horses dferent from european ones. it runs far more stable but their size smaller

The stirrup didn't help skirmishers, it helped melee cavalry. And while it might be less unstable aiming is still hard.

Also they didn't invent the stirrup, the indians invented it.

>nomads arrived balkans even croita as far as I know

Sorry I forgot about the Avars and the Magyars.

>Also I know attila recruited germanics but how about their numbers? Did he really relied them?

There are no real numbers on how many actual Germanics were in Attila's army but it's known that hePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23549

>They were a vanguard cavalry regiment.

Ypu can read articles or read main sources about second siege of vienna, their duty was protect ottoman army from polish attack.

>The stirrup didn't help skirmishers, it helped mele

no you can turn behind shoot arrows while using stirrup, whithout it you lose control

>Sorry I forgot about the Avars and the Magyars

it's ok we're not here to bash you m8

>There are no real numbers on how many actual Germanics were in Attila's army but it's known that he lead the Alans, Alemanni, and Ostrogoths

I though he just allied with them. Also afaik alans were cavalry core but not sure.

>>23551

>I though he just allied with them. Also afaik alans were cavalry core but not sure.

Yeah, by "lead" I meant that Attila lead the coalition.

>>22414

I greet my finnish neighbors

>>23562

>>23589

If you're interested in some alternate historical fiction, check out The Years of Rice and Salt. It's a series about a world where Europe was completely wiped out by the Black Death.

>>23601

>What kicked off the industrial revolution in my opinion was America becoming independant.

>Since they could no longer rely of british trade they had to produce all the things they had to import

>implying the industrial revolution began in america

burgers please

>>23604

America had an abundance of raw resources but didn't have the means to supply itself with finished goods. That created a need that was soon filled by machines.

The industrial revolution was fueled by the rapid expansion into untapped markets. For years the british were the largest exporters of finished cloth because they kept their powered loom designs secret.

But to be fair, everything is so interconnected that it's hard to tell just how much influence everything had

>>23601

I think this ties in with the idea I proposed earlier about Industrialization being closely tied with protectionism of a nation's internal economy from foreign cheap goods. The British started their revolution in the textile trade, which wouldn't have happened had they not enforced tariffs on the island to protect it from cheaper goods from outside. Then, you had Egypt which might have industrialized had Muhammad Ali's government survived, but failed when the British destroyed it allowing them to flood the Egyptian market with goods too cheap for local industry to compete against.

>all indo-european people first went to India, stabilized there and then left india to go to Europe

Is this idiot saying it because he heard indo-european? They shared the religions because they were one population when they were together, that doesn't mean that these guys went to india and then one part split and went back to the northern Caucasus and to Europe, that's not how human migration works.

>In the 19th century the swastika was re-discovered and people started protesting against christianity

No they didn't. Finding a swastika on a team or a Coca cola bottle opener doesn't mean shit, is there any documentation about a famous hinduist protest?

> Nietzsche is famous for his impassioned denouncement of biblical monotheism. “God is dead”

What? Nietzsche talked about the need of surpassing Christian Morals in society, not about "we should go back to hinduism because of a swastika"

>Nietzsche charged that the Christian religion ascendant in the West since Roman times has been a magnificent hoax perpetrated by “the Jews” (as he put it), designed to put them into a position of power, influence, and authority. The Jewish aim, he believed, was to elevate the Hebrew God into the world’s God by establishing the New Testament religion onto the foundations of their Old Testament tradition:

He says that the Apostle Paul invented Christianity because he was a hebrew fanatic who searched a way to fullfill his religion and found it in christianity.

>Caucasians are Atantis refugees

What the fuck am I reading?

>>23561

swastikas are an ancient symbol, idk what you getting worked up about

>>23585

Read the article, it spews bullshit from everywhere.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MPZiWhhAmXAC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=irish+military+middle+ages&source=bl&ots=UoPO84XdWX&sig=8YQWd0JSsbAoGNFGuIL6jThyHpc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AxSgVZnhO8anU4D7vJAL&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=irish%20military%20middle%20ages&f=false

>>23588

What about you go choke a dick, faggot? at least you get something and don't whine about it.

>>23593

"choke on" you get it.

>>23593

I'd let him choke my dick if you know what I mwan

>>23463

Yes, I can do pattern-welded knives, but that is mostly for special occasions as it takes a long time to get everything to look right.

>>23424

It's called "board", just board.

this aint reddit

>>23495

I thought those were called Sub-reddits?

>>23535

That's why this isn't reddit. It's boards, not sub boards.

>>23336

>>23339

Shoutout for >>>/wrol/

>>23471

Talking about "peasants" in this context is kind of outdated Marxist history though. In Britain, for example, the soldier is more likely to be urban poor.

Body armour would help against spear attacks but the British were not engaging hand to hand. If the Zulus reached melee range then you are fucked regardless. I'm fairly sure they would be competent enough to stab around a chest plate and you're not going to be outfitting your army in suits of armour.

Not to mention the huge costs of starting armour production from scratch, actually producing them and then shipping all this additional to the troops.

>>23499

The British had bayonets and were not reluctant to use them. There was heavy bayonet fighting at Rourke's Drift and a successful counterattack with the bayonet.

I feel like there is a lot of video game logic here with the assumption that men with guns must not be "statted" for hand to hand fighting.

>>23430

Simply, logistics. The British military was equipped without armour because against other European armies it was pointless. Producing and shipping thousands of armours all the way down to Africa, where they would have been used for a single, easy war (and I can see many soldiers not wearing them because of the heat) wasn't worth it.

>>23457

That's not a rifle.

>>22439

My dad also told me that years ago, when i was a kid and i wanted to be an archeologist, he said that people in the future could dig up a bottle of mayonnaise and think it was some old ceremonial recipient for the god mayonnaise.

>>22439

it's interesting, I imagined aliens finding the remnants f humanity in thousands of years and being baffled as to why there were so many black screens (TVs, phones etc)

>>21117

Ceasar burned them first. Another fucking blow is when the mongols arrived in Baghdad. sign

>>21874

this

>>22522

Yes, and yes. The force human arms can exert all at once is limited, so either one finds a method to store muscle energy for longer (crossbows) or another source of power is necessary. Gunpowder as seen could propel a ball with ten times the kinetic energy of an arrow, all the rest (inferior rate of fire, material, weight and shape of the projectile) becomes relatively unimportant.

Here are the words of an English soldier, writing in 1595:

>Nor to my knowledge have I ever seen anyone slain outright with an arrow, and only a few with crossbow quarrels. But with arquebus and pistol shot I have seen 20000 killed outright, beside all the wounded and maimed.

>>22526

In what context was that quote? I'm pretty sure that in 1595, the only major power that still fielded numbers of archers was the Turks. Was that against Irish and Scots?

>>22585

It was against the French, and the longbowmen were English. Blame conservative noblemen who've never seen battle, I guess.

This is the full account of the skirmish, part of a treatise meant to rebut the theoretical arguments of longbow supporters:

http://the-norseman.livejournal.com/16616.html

>>22290

I imagine it might have been the same with arrows then. An army with missile superiority might have used massed archer fire to prevent an opposing army from advancing, or to thin a mass of units prior to a charge.

>>22308

What this nigga said.

>>21285

An ancient Rome on it's peak population is born everyday in the 21st century, I'm sure of it… Back in the classical eras, army couldn't be that big because the civilizations back then couldn't afford to lose that much people. Only in the WW1 great powers started to suffer casualties by the hundreds of thousands

>>21285

I believe the total population of the entire world during the height of the Roman Empire was less than half of the US population, let alone just focusing on the Roman Empire, so there can't be a fair comparison by actual numbers between 20th century population and that of the population of a nation in the 1st century, it's like comparing apples and oranges. So obviously there would be more soldiers in the modern day due to the total population increase.

Proportionally speaking it would be more fair to compare, like what percentage were soldiers relative to the total population of a nation. So lets say a large modern day army has 500,000 soldiers consisting of .01% of the total population, and an army in the medieval age or antiquity had 50,000 but is also .01% of the population during a war, then they would actually be equal in size.

>>21285

Well we have to understand that WW2 was a bigger conflict then the wars involving Rome, and that the worlds population have increased on a huge scale, but I'd like to think as the guns get bigger, so does the battles

>>23125

Well guns made peasants actually formidable.

I listened to some of Dan Carlin's blueprint for Armageddon and talks about how the Napoleonic war was the first instance in the west of real total conscription and mobilization of huge forces. Until then there were just professional standing armies. No one was willing to put arms in the hands of the lower classes.

>>23370

That was a move of desperation really. You had plenty of peasant uprisings before then where local separatists didn't hesitate to arm thousands of peasants with medieval and early modern weaponry.

The French didn't change the general disdain for the quality of mass conscripts most armies had either.

>>23324

No, Lenin was following Marxist Communism, which said that there needed to be a period of terror to consolidate their power. He was passionate about communism and wanted Russia to get there at any cost, so he wasn't being evil. A lot of American propaganda labelled Lenin as to be as evil as Stalin, when he really wasn't. He was following a dream and the dream failed.

>>23325

Yeah but, Hitler was following National Socialism, which said that there needed to be a period of terror to consolidate their power. He was passionate about national socialism and wanted Germany to get there at any cost, so he wasn't being evil. A lot of American propaganda labeled Hitler as to be as evil as Stalin, when he really wasn't. He was following a dream and the dream failed.

>>23327

touche

But Lenin didn't try to attempt the genocide of a section of the populace of his country. But I see what you mean, in my opinion I don't think he was a dictator.

>>23328

Lenin wasn't a dictator? Evil or not, that's debatable (for what it's worth), but Soviet Russia wasn't ruled by the proletariat, that's for sure.

>>23329

Yeah, the Bolsheviks were not right to claim power and they paid the price for it. There needed to be a period of reform before communism and they were not the most popular party so they were not justified in controlling Russia.

>>22993

Ah fuck it Kamerade I'll take care of it. Might contain some ballant mistakes but fuck it

http://www.leben-im-mittelalter.net/alltag-im-mittelalter.html

Daily life in the middle ages

In the middle ages the majority of the population was living in servitude to a small nobility. The simple people constantly had to fight for thier lifes and every winter season was a huge challenge. Meanwhile the nobility could lean back and celebrate thriving feasts. But the common people liked to celebrate, if the circumstances allowed it. With the flourishment of craftsmanship a large varity of jobs developed with the upcoming high middle age and wealth spread further among the population. All in all you could say that life was pretty hard which was evident due to the high mortality rate

Daily life

Since the daily life of people varied immensly depending on thier rank and wealth, the daily life of the middle ages can hardly be summed up. One has to take the situations of the people into account. Live on a castle was hardly comparable to live in a monastry.

"Castlelive"

Live in a medival castle followed the rules of dominating caste system, the nobility (the lords and knights) were responsible for protection, the clergy for the peoples spiritual wellbeing and the pesants and workers feed and served them.

"working in a castle"

Work was well organised on castles. There was the court that served the lords, wether they were king or nobleman, by cleaning and cooking. Appart from the knights there were hunters aswell, that brought the venision for the lords table. Almost all pesants had to perform drudgery, this means a good part of the yeast and bred animals had to be given to thier lord. IfPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23150

I love you anon.

http://www.leben-im-mittelalter.net/gesellschaft-im-mittelalter/die-staendeordnung/der-adel/niederer-adel.html

This one would be a good one next, I suppose, since it's short. Thanks again. I really appreciate it.

http://victoria.tc.ca/~tgodwin/duncanweb/documents/northumberland.html

This is an English noble household from the 16th century. German is probably very similar. I don't know that there could be an average for any particular rank's level of wealth. That's individual.

>Would they have spices?

Which spices they have depends on which part of the 16th century. This is early age of exploration.