This thread is reserved for short history related questions of all time period not worthy of their own threads. I'll start with mine.
Who did the visigoths look from a military point of view during the sacking of rome? How organized had they become compared to rome?
Other urls found in this thread:
ancient.eu
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
smithsonianmag.com
ia902607.us.archive.org
archive.org
twitter.com
I've read that usually only nobles or well-off people could afford swords at least until the high middle ages. How expensive were swords back then?
There is some argument but it might not be inaccurate to think of the Visogoths as essentially a Roman army that revolted against the government.
I think they were a large part of the mercenary support the Roman empire relied upon during its decline, however they were culturally distinct from the Romans. I think their origin is still under debate, but they're believed to have come from poland or the baltics
don't hesitate to let me know if I'm retarded
It wasn't swords are expensive but good swords are expensive as the metal needs To be hard throughout unlike say a spear where it's just the tip
Post Marian reforms you join the army and got gear, did this continue with the heavily Germanised armies at the fall of Rome?
And yeah legionary defects really built up his forces
I thought they were Crimeans hence why the Huns push them out
Also they weren't Germanic but something else right
What was the likelihood of a British or American soldier on the Western Front that he'd ever kill a German soldier?
What was the likelihood he'd be killed?
This is only concerning divisions that saw action.
Are there any estimates as to how many casualties were caused by small arms fire during the world wars? I've heard that artillery is the main killer and not bullets so I'm interested.
I don't know much on this topic after all, it turns out they're a germanic people from West of the Balkans (not from near the Baltics, hurr). And you're right about them being chased out by the Huns
Did medieval Bohemia use horse archers
Was there any legion that had a special reputation during imperial times? perhaps one that was particularly feared for its brutality or maybe one that was considered less disciplined than the rest, any trait that made it stand out.
How do I learn how to properly learn about history?
I basically read 14 hours a day, but I feel like I'm getting dumber by the minute and understand (and remember) less and less about what I've read.
I always think of the questions for these threads and then forget them.
Like now
Can't think of any.
Don't read as much. Try to limit your field of to periods close to one another.
Trying to ponder on what you learned instead reading more might help.
There are alot of historical youtube channels I'm sure, I learned about general and special relativity, quantam theory, field theory, ect. I have read very little on certain subjects and leave students in college who are specializing in it in the dust.
what was the cheapest available armor available in Western Europe around the 1st century BC?
Was Lamellar widely known? If Not when did it get introduced into the Mediterranean?
It depends what do you want to know. School/uni subject, funny legends or real events of the past.
Who did the romans tough Jehova was when they first encountered da joos?
Why didnt greeks have longer pteruges?
What type of gun is the soldier in the middle holding? A modified PPSH?
>What was the likelihood of a British or American soldier on the Western Front that he'd ever kill a German soldier?
Pretty low, unless he was an artillery gunner.
>What was the likelihood he'd be killed?
IIRC the chance of becoming a casualty was 10%. Although I guess it depends were on the front he was, and which battles he participated in.
Erma EMP
Easy access
Swords in Europe dropped dramatically in price in 13th century because of the invention of the blast furnace. Up to the twelfth century, the sword was an expensive weapon.
Source: youtube.com
Cheapest armor then would probably be the subarmalis or linothorax, almost the same thing as a medieval gambeson. I can't help with lamellar.
How seriously did ancient people take their own myths? Like, dumb people today STILL take urban legends as reality. So what were the chances that an ancient Greek or Nip wouldn't cross a bridge because he thought a monster dwelt under it, or whatever? Is there any single recorded incident of a guy doing a really retarded thing due to superstition? Mind you, I'm not counting moral norms here that come from religion. I mean like swallowing mercury to live forever tier.
Would the Ottoman Empire have participated in WWI if Enver Pasha had not been Ottoman Minister of War?
Video related.
>Cheapest armor then would probably be the subarmalis or linothorax, almost the same thing as a medieval gambeson.
thanks
>I can't help with lamellar.
Oh well, thanks for what you gave me.
Hopefully someone else can answer that.
There's considerable evidence that common people in the late Hellenistic and Roman imperial periods lost faith in the old pagan ways. This is partly why Christianity spread quickly.
I'm less clear on some of those customs you're talking about (i.e. swallowing mercury).
On an unrelated note, who's that qt3.14 waifu?
No, we used German-styled army, horse archers are more to the east
But, you could be a Christian and still believe in stuff like this. I mean you would only have to replace the mythological creatures with demons and shit. I'm asking whether or not people ever took this "seriously."
Also, the mercury thing is from China. The emperor of Qin was trying to gain immortality but instead ended up dying.
en.wikipedia.org
>Reportedly, he died from Chinese alchemical elixir poisoning due to ingesting mercury pills, made by his alchemists and court physicians.[76] Ironically, these pills were meant to make Qin Shi Huang immortal
Girl is yoo seung ok.
Dunno about ancient people, but I was reading travelling notes of one guy who did a trip throghout 12th century Europe and he said some people seriously told him about flying snakes in the mountains, or about group of people being slaughtered by demons outside city gates etc., and by how he described it, it wasn't anything unusual to believe in such stuff.
Well, there still are touch-healers around.
>I'm asking whether or not people ever took this "seriously."
>Also, the mercury thing is from China. The emperor of Qin was trying to gain immortality but instead ended up dying.
I don't think most people during that time took these rituals seriously, but I could be wrong.
>Girl is yoo seung ok.
She's more than ok to me
Consider when up were a little kid a little kid and you took seriously don't bullshit someone told you, or you took seriously TV show and thought it could be real
Even today you get smart, generally scientific minded people, who nevertheless believe they will burn in hellfire for whatever sin
People literally believed this stuff. Like anything you had your sceptics but usually people didn't have the perspective necessary to just shrug it all off
This is a good idea for a thread, I learned many things from it. We should do it more often.
Good job, Veeky Forums.
Pretty sure /k/ did it first and that this is far from the first of these threads on Veeky Forums
but I agree and think we should probably keep one of these threads up at all times. Who knows, it might even keep the number of other repeat threads down.
Was Napoleon really manlet, or is it just a meme and he was average for his time?
Also i heard some sultan decided not to help him because his wife was cousin of Nappy's gf that he broke up with or someshit like that, is it true?
And how did Napoleon die?
He was average height
The manlet meme was originally british propaganda
Doubt it because it is very rare for muslim royalty to marry christian nobles, not sure if it has ever happened
He died of stomach cancer in exile on Saint Helena
Did any peasants ever really hookup with a noble/royalty. Or is it a modern Disney tier trope.
They did regularly but it was rare for them to marry although there are examples of that too
>Viking that can afford a chain-shirt but not a helmet.
>Shirtless Viking
Fucking Osprey REEEEEE.
The only relevant Sultan in that time/place would be the Ottoman one, but I don't know about that specific story.
Depends on how broadly you define "nobility". Peasants could marry into the knightly class, but I don't know if they could marry higher than that.
Peasant women could be mistresses to royals, though. The French kingdom went so far as to make "royal mistress" a defined legal position.
I believe they settled in the empire and functioned as mercenaries to the romans for a while after they migrated.
If I remember right they just thought of God as God of the Jews and probably didn't think he really existed. Kind of like how American settlers might have viewed the spirits of the Natives.
If the Greeks fucked men and boys does that mean sexuality isn't biological but more by choice?
Perversion is a type of human behavior that deviates from that which is understood to be orthodox or normal. Although the term perversion can refer to a variety of forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are considered particularly abnormal, repulsive or obsessive.
it mostly shows that the borders and identities we've made around homosexuality today is just that, a social construct. Someone isn't necessarily gay or straight but part of a larger spectrum. And the way we view sexual identity as a society colours the sexual identity and orientation people take upon themselves.
People believing in monsters and such creatures has been a thing trough history. Fuck, it's a thing even today.
I think the Romans tough there were dragon-like things in China. Which I guess it's kind of natural seeing as 99% of the Romans if not 100% would never reach that far east.
Quick rundown on what the Eastern Orthodox thought of Luther and the Protestant reformation?
I know they probably supported it politically because it fractured the catholic block and they thought the papacy corrupt. But theologically are they closer to Lutheran and other first protestant groups or are they closer to Catholicism?
Sexuality is a social construct backed by nature. Like many of our most basic social rules and laws.
Romans believed foreign gods existed, but they were not Roman gods. There are several instances of the Romans adopting a foreign gods into their pantheon, such as Epona; originally a Gallic goddess.
What is this? Was figurine on the table a replica of his erect penis? It appears to have a pee hole (meatus) a little below the glans (head), since it is believed that he had hypospadias. The scrotum also looks a little narrow like it only had one testicle. What else could the Sculpture be if not?
What did berber women in the 16th century wear?
>Was Napoleon really manlet, or is it just a meme and he was average for his time?
It comes from discrepancies between the French measurement system and the British measurement system. A French Foot was larger than a British one, so something like 5'2 in France was 5'6 in the British system. In the British Imperial system, the average height of a Frenchman during this period was 5'4, while a Brit would be 5'6, which was around Nappy's height. Thrown into this was British propaganda, which was fueled by a surge in political cartoonists, and Napoleon's nickname, le petit caporal.
Having said that, by modern standards Nappy was a right proper manlet (as were most at the time). A few years ago an exhibit regarding Napoleon toured the world, and I got a chance to go. They had one of his uniforms on display and it was tiny. as were most items in the exhibit. Fun stuff.
Ceasar's 10th legion was made up of veterans and feared by other commanders at the time. The importance of augustus being declared the heir of ceasar was mostly to assure loyalty of the experienced 10th legion.
i also think pompey's legio ferata had an honorable reputation.
Both the legions marched in truimphs wich made them famous throughout Rome
The ferocious, disciplined or lazyness of the legion really depended on the general. Sulla's legions where known to be pretty cruel but very loyal, but that was mostly because sulla was a cruel but mighty general.
Barbo on the other hand was not experienced in keeping legions loyal so his legions where more prone to dessert to armies like sulla's.
chatolicim
There are estimates. You'd want to google books it "WW1 small arms casualties" "WW1 artillery casualties" kind of searches.
On a search "Morning After war: CS Lewis and WW1" says:
-Artillery was thought to have caused up to 70%
But it lists % that don't correspond to eachother so I assume it is listing separate battles, and thus going to look for a better source. It's late and I am having trouble finding the sources I did before but I had seen rates around 70% for WW1 or WW2 artillery.
smithsonianmag.com
They suggest 60% of fatalities of WW1 were caused by artillery
2 questions about Libya.
1. Why was Libya switch to a Gold standard a threat to western capitalism?
2. How could the West pressure Libya into destroying their chemical weapons when the west owns Nukes?
It definitely happened, given for example Uzun Hassan was also partly a descendant of a Komnenos princess
Also, several of Napoleons generals were apparently quite tall, and so he looked tiny in comparison.
You need to engage with historiography. Deeply. And write. 1000 words a day
>2. How could the West pressure Libya into destroying their chemical weapons when the west owns Nukes?
Morally? Because Gadaffi had shown himself on multiple occasions to be a state sponsor of terrorism and thus not capable of being trusted with WMDs by the international community - especially his nieghbors in Europe, who were often the targets of such attacks.
Politically? Because the West had nukes and overwhelming military superiority over Libya, and the Soviets weren't about to pick Gadaffi as their hill to die on.
Sounds like uninformed guestimation.
more informed than your leading questions were.
What if I hate writing?
Then you're fucked. The inability to engage in writing means that you'll always be a trainspotter.
Well, shit. I seriously fucked up with my choice of major. I've read countless books on style and academic writing manuals and I simply can't progress beyond retarded short sentences.
Yep, you need at least 2000 words to publish a history article.
how affordabale were bows capable of penetrating common armor in the bronze age? could a peasant buy or make one?
This seems like a good chance to get book recommendations! I'm very interested in prehistory but really not sure where to start.
Switch to STEM. Or focus on acing things and getting into law school.
Is this a meme?
It's clearly a crouching man.
I can't speak for the ancient people's, but midevial philosophers noted discussions with common folk regarding dog headed men and other similar creatures. The commoners always thought the monsters made their homes just over the hill and out of sight. The philospher would travel to where the monsters supposedly lived, only to find villagers saying the same thing. I want to say it was Duns Scotus who travelled around and investigated the claims.
I suppose these could be taken as urban legends. As for pagan worship practices, I'd imagine most common people believed enough to care about certain feasts and celebrations, but they probably weren't as religious as a common American or Italian today.
a friend of mine told me that the reason men in greek sculptures have tiny penises is because they thought (i think wrongly) small penises are better because they grow more when they get erect
was he bullshitting me?
Debunk this autismo pasta
>Assuming that Hitler started gassing Jews since day 1, that makes for 3,153,600 minutes. 6,000,000 Jews killed during 3,153,600 minutes comes out to 1.9 Jews per minute. That means Hitler killed roughly 1 Jew every 30 seconds. (LOL) In Auschwitz, the most famous and biggest concentration camp, there are 15 crematoriums. According to Auschwitz survivors, Jews would go into the chamber, gassed for 15-20 minutes, then put into the oven. It takes 1 hour to cremate a body using modern furnaces which operate at much higher temperatures than the traditional ovens at the camp. However, lets say that the ovens were operating at a level that we see today, that means it would take 1 hour, 20 minutes to gas and burn 15 Jews assuming they were all burned simultaniously. (Disregarding the time it would take for the gas to empty the chamber for the bodies to be transported from the chamber to the oven.) The elevators used to transport bodies were very slow and could only take up 7 bodies at a time with their weight capacity. However, for our greatest ally, we're going to assume that bodies were teleported instantly from chamber to oven. That means 15 Jews were gassed and burned every 1.2 hours. That comes out to exactly 300 Jews every 24 hours (Assuming the gassing and burning of Jews was happening every hour straight for 6 years on an uninterrupted basis) the total # of killed jews would be 657,000 for those 6 years. The official Jewish story is that 4,000,000 Jews were killed at Auschwitz alone.
Well, for starters, 6 million dead Jews is not 6 million gassed Jews. Nor were they all cremated, certainly not at Auschwitz. Furthermore, modern crematoria are not designed to reduce bodies to ash as quickly as possible. We have statements all the way back from 1875 ia902607.us.archive.org
The official story is NOT that 4 million were killed at Auschwitz alone ,and never has been, outside of grossly misreading a Soviet propaganda sign.
Pretty much the entire thing is one gigantic strawman.
well I remember reading about how they considered small penises to be a symbol of intelligence and big dicks related to stupid barbarians
this is unlikely though, since they were seeing each other naked everyday
For a medieval western European peasant, what kind of food would they bring with them on a journey?
Do they have access to salted meats, or would they just bring breads, nuts, and fruits? Or would they usually just find inns or people to buy food from?
Then, if available, what would an army from the same region supply themselves for a campaign? Because foraging foreign farms can only get so far.
I don't understand knightly orders in the crusades and after. Who funded them? Was it just a bunch of lords getting together to fuck shit up?
>I don't understand knightly orders in the crusades and after. Who funded them?
Donations initially. After they started up,they'd hold lands which the non-knightly members would use for productive enterprises to fund the order.
The templars in particular were renowned bankers.
What happened to the Romans?
The Latin speaking, toga wearing, Decimus Salvius?
a simple answer would be the separation of he empire into east and west started he decaying of that 'trope'
plus, I would also say that lmao Christianity began to kill it as well as that attire and performance etc was paganlike
Why do a lot of sources list currency amounts from history without giving context? If I'm told that a Panzer cost 12 gazillion Reichsmarks, how am I supposed to get what that means? Is it possible to convert ancient/historical currencies to modern day amounts?
Several problems with this just from skimming it. Not all of the bodies were burned, and it's saying that 15 were gassed at one time which is also not true. Also, what this retard doesn't take into account is the prisoners that were worked to death or shot.
Basically he's assuming every single prisoner in the camps was gassed and then burned, which is objectively and absolutely false. Many were worked to death, their bodies buried in a shallow grave. Also, many of these statistics seem pulled out of his ass.
Using the equivalent in Gold is the best way to compare values across history, but even that is not perfect, value depends on a lot of factors, it is not as easy as one could think to find an universal standard for value
It is said that big dongs were hard to sculpt in a aesthetic way or prone to broke
Most likely that they didnt took much pride in big dongus to make the effort
You cannot debunk it because its right, but not to disprove holocaust as a whole just the burning thing, wich leads to more questions that (((you))) dont want to be asked
>is it possible
Of course, inflation nowadays is not on how much money is in circulation, but the cost of fuel and grain
Look at that in history and then you get rougher estimates
Because small pebises meant you could control your urges
Whilst only a pervert rapist walked around with a hard on
...
but women like big penises and the sculptures are meant to represent the ideal man, who among other things is the one who gets more pussy. are there any other societies that also seem to regard small penises as a higher standard?
Nobody gave a single shit what women thought at the time.
>the one who gets more pussy.
reminder that best kind of love for ancient greeks was tje one between an old and young man
women were seen just as a mean of reproduction but nothing else
When did the [Eastern] Roman Empiren became so greek? How is that it doesn't seem as if it was latin in the past?
Did the Huns go through Croatia in their invasion of Rome?
The Romans always pretended to be greek, with their ruling class speaking it as their lingua franca. With eastern empire, seeing as it was in greece, that just made it more clear.
i want to know everything i can about the day-to-day life of people from 1910 to about the 1980, in america. where should i start (assuming i know close to nothing on the subject)? i'd be interested to read some diaries from then or something. any documentaries, books, etc fill me up
you need to have a goal. research without a goal is never going to work.
what do you want to find out?
Since we know from historical findings that viking shields were thinner than a finger, how exactly were they used?
Clearly not as seen in movies and reenactments, to block incoming blows directly, as you could break through a shield of that strength just punching it very strong.
hi Veeky Forums, /k/ here, first time poster with a question of numbers. I've just read this in "Naval Power" by Jeremy Black:
>In 1914, the loss of ships to German submarines and mines cost the British more men and major major ships than the germans lost in battle[...]
surely this must mean german losses in battle (at sea)? from what I can gather, german losses on all fronts were about 144,000 men in 1914. Did the British really lose more than 144,000 JUST at sea in 1914?
pic unrelated