Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Didn't the knights kill each other squires during the battle and than in the evening share the stories of killing whose poor peasants while drinking ale?
2
General Off Topic / Re: Meanwhile in USA
« Last post by Westwood on Today at 08:34:33 AM »
I don't know much about spilled milk but for insight into what America's interests in Syria might be, along with other contextual information, consider the following written last year. If you don't feel like reading 16 pages of summary assessment, then consider instead these important bits:

Quote
The traditional definition of U.S. interests in the Middle East has centered on ensuring the free flow of natural resources and maintaining relationships with key allies and protecting them from external threats, in part to ensure access for U.S. military operations.
Quote
The political arrangements of the Middle East look vastly different now than they did when President Barack Obama took office. Popular uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, three of which evolved into civil wars, have altered the landscape. These have resulted in occasional opportunities... But more often, this tumult has strained relations between the United States and its partners. This is largely attributable to Middle Eastern allies’ reduced faith in the U.S. security commitment... In the eyes of Arab rulers, not intervening to save Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak, chastising Bahrain for its crackdown on Pearl Square demonstrators, intervening in Libya’s 2011 civil war without a plan for postwar stabilization, allowing the chemical weapons red line in Syria to be crossed without going to war against the Assad regime, and ultimately concluding a nuclear deal with Iran are all evidence of the same sin: abandonment. It is hard to overstate how strained relations became with Ankara, Jerusalem, Cairo, and Riyadh in the second term of the Obama administration. Turkey alleged U.S. involvement in a coup against the government, felt betrayed by the United States partnering with Kurdish forces in Syria, and has now taken to coordinating its own cross-border operations with Russia. Israel publicly opposed the Iran nuclear deal... Riyadh mounted a military campaign in Yemen against U.S. urging and has prosecuted it in a way that Washington considers escalatory. And Egypt accused the previous American administration of cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood while failing to recognize the legitimacy of the 2013 “corrective revolution.” These partnerships have always been rocky... But whether the state of relations between Washington and Middle Eastern capitals is at an exceptionally low point or not, it is objectively poor.
Quote
The role of building partner capacity, while grinding and often uncelebrated, is crucial for addressing another key challenge: assuring American allies that the United States remains committed to their security. What the Saudi-led operation in Yemen, UAE involvement in Libya, and Turkish operations in Syria should teach us is that in the absence of American actions that signal a commitment to partner security, local actors will deploy their military forces in ways that will sometimes be escalatory and threaten to draw the United States into broader conflicts... investing in reassurance ...is about mitigating the potential for independent action that undermines U.S. interests ...avoiding substantial involvement in the region, however appealing, is not likely to be possible, and the U.S. military needs to be ready for such contingencies. In such cases, both past experience and ongoing changes in the strategic landscape of the region argue in favor of military interventions that are limited in scale and modest in ambition.

For additional context, let us also consider what a particular Neocon mouthpiece had to say about Syrian intervention in late 2016. Important bits:

Quote
The sad reality of international relations is that interests trump humanitarianism. The Security Council has deliberated, released statements and resolutions, and watched on as numerous cases of crimes against humanity came before it. Assad is not the first despot to inflict egregious crimes against his own people, and seemingly get away with it. When it serves the interest of a great power, morality is a footnote. And Russia is not the only party to the game—it is the standard conduct of all great powers.
Quote
If it is solely for humanitarian purposes, the United States will abstain every day of the week. It is necessary, thus, to determine what America’s interests are in the Syrian civil war, which remain unclear. Obama’s failure is not in that he has refused to intervene, but that, after five years of war, he has yet to clearly articulate what America’s interests are in this war.

Foreign policy was never a focus of the Obama administration, let alone Middle East policy beyond trying as hard as possible to look like the anti-Bush for PR reasons. Not only did Obama pass up opportunities to pursue American interests in the region, his administration didn't even properly establish what those interests were. Across his two terms the situation in the Middle East changed dramatically, that is to say half the Muslim world collapsed; including the part we'd just finished near-stabilizing six+ years into a counterinsurgency after Paul Bremer and the rest of the State Department fumbled an astonishingly swift tactical victory. We do nearly nothing in response to all the upheaval of the past decade, we don't try to maintain the status quo, we don't even consider the situation and define any sort of desired outcomes in our interests. Who does? Who goes beyond defining goals and actually asserts their positions in the region? Our little friends and our big enemies. When we do nothing, Russia, taking advantage of a vacuum, acts on their interests; Israel, lacking faith in our leadership, acts on their interests; Turkroaches, feeling a little of both, act on their interests; Saudi Arabia, lacking faith in our leadership, acts on their interests; Iran, taking advantage of a vacuum, acts on their interests. Our inaction has spurred action by others with conflicting interests, who will now step on the toes of one another and, if the linear course the Middle East has been on for the past decade continues, will escalate the situation militarily. What we are to do now with a situation that is magnitudes more intricate and dangerous remains to be seen. Time after time our military requested two things from civilian authorities to deal with the Middle East problem, defined goals and the operational independence to pursue them. From the Obama administration it received the opposite of both. From the Trump administration we've seen much more willingness to let the rest of the chain of command exercise their best judgement, but goals remain elusive. Do we like Assad? No, he's not /ourguy/, he's Russia's. Was there ever a plan to replace Assad? No, and there probably won't be at this point of escalation in the Syrian conflict. The "Red Line" only served to show everyone else in the region that America under Obama was full of shit when we didn't follow through. The time for showing people we were not full of shit was then, years ago. Further alleged uses of chemical weapons by Assadists may very well have provided and will provide opportunities to "topple the regime," but there was no plan to do so and no will to carry it out if it did exist. Media coverage of these events is its own reward for media companies, things that trigger an emotional response in the average consumer of news media, like gassed children, generate interest, discussion, and ad revenue. The media doesn't need an ulterior motive, they'll pump up whatever story leads them to cash, and dead kids makes people click. They don't drive policy. Joe on the street sees the headlines and is concerned, but if only he knew how bad things really were. The situation is actually such that his life as a materialistic sheep might be legitimately threatened as the trend of escalation continues.

If you're dead set on your milk metaphors, then it is entirely accurate to say that this milk was spilled several years ago by a different President. Except the milk glass is bottomless and has been pumping milk into our dining room continuously all those years. Also the milk is actually piss. We are now up to our eyes in piss. It is at this moment that news media looks in the window and says my God! There's a puddle of piss on the dining room floor, won't someone think of the children? We grab an air-to-surface mop and begin to fruitlessly swish it about in our dining room full of piss.

tldr:
(click to show/hide)
3
Was it really the English Knights who carried the day at Agincourt?  :lol:  Or was it the horde of naked archers who more or less executed the exhausted Fully Armored French Knights who were stuck in the mud dying of heat exhaustion?

Again i'm not saying plate is totally useless, it's just far more exhausting and has many more drawbacks then people tend to describe. The French were absolutely slaughtered at Agincourt mainly due to exhaustion. Obviously it offers better protection, but by no means protects you from from 90% of danger on the battlefield.

Here is just a small list


1. Falling off your horse in 30-60kg of armor/equipment at a gallop would at the least leave you completely out of action but probably outright kill you.

2. Bad peripheral vision

3. Exhaustion

4. Priority target

5. Greatly reduces your chances to retreat or fall back if on foot

6. Way more exhausting march to the battle, your legs will probably be jelly by the time you reach the enemy lines if you are attacking on foot.

7. http://www.thearma.org/essays/Lalaing.htm#.WtmAEIjwaUm You can read here how easily people can be felled in full plate, knocked unconscious, grappled etc. You are far from invulnerable just because you have plate armor, and these were just 1v1 duels.

Yes, the knights played a big role in Agincourt.  And the french knights were not 'dying of heat exhaustion', instead they stupidly charged the well entrenched positions of the english, through muddy ground. That's a death trap whether you wear armor or not. And the archers were not the only ones there, surprise. The English dismounted knights helped a fair bit.

1. Stop saying 30-60. It's 25-30 at max. And no, it won't kill you. People fall of horses all the time in jousting armor, which is quite a bit heavier. They're fine.

2. Yes, I totally agree. That is, with the visor down. Which was likely only done in lance charges and when getting shot by arrows. Otherwise, the visors were up.

3. Not enough for it to matter over the protection you get

4. Not really. In fact, the armor says "Don't kill me, I have lots of money. Ransom me!" Sure, a priority target. But for other reasons. And that still doesn't mean they'd actually be able to do anything to you. Especially if they were peasants. Wouldn't stand a chance.

5. No it doesn't

6.You don't march with armor on, you march with the armor off. Then you put the armor on, and go to battle. And even if you did march with it on for whatever reason, it would be fine. Just ask anyone who owns an authentic set. An authentic set, not a cheap badly made one.
4
Full plate fell out of use because armies got centralized, not because it was unpractical. When the state started to hold a regular army which got paid, and which had the profession of being soldiers, they realized that they could really not afford to give people armor. So what they did was give people guns instead. Because guns were cheap and required minimal training. Cuirassiers, which were the wealthy bunch, still wore bulletproof breastplates.

I'd really like to take a look of those accounts of yours.

Sure, you will get exhausted over time, but so will you without wearing armor. And if you're gonna get exhausted anyway, might as well do it boing protected from 99% of the hits you will receive. And it really isn't 30kg +, it's more like 30kg -
Especially if you count the various mercenaries who would only use parts of a full plate harness.

The english knights would like to differ about that horseback thingy. During the Hundred Years War, they mostly fought on foot. And know what? Their armor was heavier than most around during that time. History doesn't agree with you

Was it really the English Knights who carried the day at Agincourt?  :lol:  Or was it the horde of naked archers who more or less executed the exhausted Fully Armored French Knights who were stuck in the mud dying of heat exhaustion?

Again i'm not saying plate is totally useless, it's just far more exhausting and has many more drawbacks then people tend to describe. The French were absolutely slaughtered at Agincourt mainly due to exhaustion. Obviously it offers better protection, but by no means protects you from from 90% of danger on the battlefield.

Here is just a small list


1. Falling off your horse in 30-60kg of armor/equipment at a gallop would at the least leave you completely out of action but probably outright kill you.

2. Bad peripheral vision

3. Exhaustion

4. Priority target

5. Greatly reduces your chances to retreat or fall back if on foot

6. Way more exhausting march to the battle, your legs will probably be jelly by the time you reach the enemy lines if you are attacking on foot.

7. http://www.thearma.org/essays/Lalaing.htm#.WtmAEIjwaUm You can read here how easily people can be felled in full plate, knocked unconscious, grappled etc. You are far from invulnerable just because you have plate armor, and these were just 1v1 duels.
5
I've read accounts of the siege of Constantinople, and other various military actions around the time, the Spanish conquests of the Americas etc, Full plate was too cumbersome that's why it fell out of use.  Few Full suits of plate were unearthed in Venetian holdings in the Med, these were ceremonial suits showing off wealth status for Captains and Governors. Just because someone can use it without a problem for a short amount of time comfortably in a youtube video or HEMA competition doesn't mean the weight won't exhaust you over time. For example most people considered in good shape today couldn't last 10 minutes in a boxing ring wearing nothing, wearing 30kg + of armor would quickly exhaust you in melee combat no matter how evenly the weight was distributed or how good of shape you are in, it was only ever practical to use full plate on horseback.

Full plate fell out of use because armies got centralized, not because it was unpractical. When the state started to hold a regular army which got paid, and which had the profession of being soldiers, they realized that they could really not afford to give people armor. So what they did was give people guns instead. Because guns were cheap and required minimal training. Cuirassiers, which were the wealthy bunch, still wore bulletproof breastplates.

I'd really like to take a look of those accounts of yours.

Sure, you will get exhausted over time, but so will you without wearing armor. And if you're gonna get exhausted anyway, might as well do it boing protected from 99% of the hits you will receive. And it really isn't 30kg +, it's more like 30kg -
Especially if you count the various mercenaries who would only use parts of a full plate harness.

The english knights would like to differ about that horseback thingy. During the Hundred Years War, they mostly fought on foot. And know what? Their armor was heavier than most around during that time. History doesn't agree with you
6
General Off Topic / Re: Meanwhile in USA
« Last post by Grytviken on Today at 06:45:30 AM »
7
Game Admin Feedback / Re: [AUSTRALIA] Kadeth
« Last post by Sandersson Jankins on Today at 06:00:46 AM »
Even kangaroos are rare where I live; largest animal I've encountered in the wildy is a 1ft wallaby. People do occasionally get eaten by crocs in the northern parts of the country, but I'd still feel much safer treking around aus than NA tbh.

really the biggest thing to watch out for is pit bulls, or even worse, PACKS of pitbulls.

remember, if you don't have a firearm on your person and are being mauled by a pitbull, the best chance you've got is to grab hold of both front legs and spread as hard as you can- if you are lucky you might separate their sternum and be able to escape
8
General Off Topic / Re: Meanwhile in USA
« Last post by Sandersson Jankins on Today at 05:44:45 AM »
look, all I'm saying is that I sure am glad that Russia didn't launch KH-53 cruise missiles at Washington, DC on April 19th, 1993 when a total of 82 fundamentalist Seventh Day Adventists living in bumfuck, Texas were shot, burned, and in the case of several dozen women and children, l i t e r a l l y gassed to death by CS inhalation in an extremely enclosed non-ventilated space. feds pumped canister after canister of CS over 2 hours into that room- little bit more brutal than alleged chlorine disperal in an open area, don'tcha think?

anyway launching munitions at Assad for allegedly gassing his own folk is pretty damn close to Russia launching cruise missiles at Tacoma or Honalulu for the actions of the FBI, ATF, Combat Applications Group at Waco.

oh and also here's something to read about the gas shit if you want i guess http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/04/syria-who-holds-up-the-opcw-investigation-in-douma.html#more
9
General Off Topic / Re: Am I racist? 2.0
« Last post by Sandersson Jankins on Today at 05:23:11 AM »
Yes, truly awful that people have so many options and food is so plentiful obesity is a larger issue than starvation and malnutrition. Truly the most awful thing that has ever happened or currently exists. Just like the "200" years in the past "racism" that is obsolete and dissapearing the world over. We're reaching levels of navel-gazing soyboyness that shouldn't even be possible.

frankly, you're being a jackass again. i don't agree with Witchcraft's assessment that racism is inherently immoral nor particularly unsavory. consider it personal preference and perfectly acceptable while any form of aggression ain't. i think my autistic posting has made that clear.

what he posted has absolutely NOTHING to do with that shit and he was right. not that I'm convincing many folk here or anywhere to read Lysander Spooner or subscribe to blowback theory but holy shit dude, wtf r u doing? dude can't be correct about a societal food issue in the US (where you ain't) because he's anti-racist? lmao

Some next level projection going on here.

I wonder if far-left/far-right thought leaders tend to get together and agree upon propaganda, that'll create just the right amount of outrage on the other side to swell numbers, without driving away the not-yet-fully-converted recruits. Everything both sides do is in response to something the other side has said or done, and that just leads to radicalizing the others. A self-sustaining circle.
I wonder just how large a part does Facebook play in this and if/when will they take responsibility for their platform, before we get a civil war in the West. Political content/people/ads + targeted/personalized content/ads are the bane of a democratic society.

it isn't the "far left" and "far right" figureheads or whatever passes for intellectual status in 2018 in cahoots with one another so they can bash commie/fashy brains out in the street. generally would posit that any far-left or far-right movement is almost certainly already infiltrated by domestic intelligence agencies. if not at the very founding of such a group, the first time more than a couple would-be skinheads get threatened with federal pen time, someone's gonna flip State's witness or go informant. if there's any sort of organized agitation going on for physical violence between or within those movements i would put my money on intel shops.

although it does seem like infiltration is more likely with far-right groups since the 90s. had tons of spooks infiltrating all manner of european leftist orgs while Operation Gladio was a thing, had FBI infiltrating damn near every eco-commie, socialist, or black militant group. now it seems like antifa may actually just be mostly grassroots pseudo-commie SJW retards sometimes shutting some speeches down and every now and again burning some stuff and suckerpunching ppl
10
General Off Topic / Re: Am I racist? 2.0
« Last post by Drunken_sailor on Today at 05:03:28 AM »
good money? like ten kangoroonies?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10