301–310 of 326 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Peut-etre fondue et racelette est la vraie potion magique?
Maybe fondue and hard cheese is the true magic potion. So even my bad French can get the translation - it what does it mean? :-) It smells like something out of Asterix - but what is the quote from?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My view is that nobility were really like gangs that controlled and fought over territory and extorted the common people. So the current nobility are really just the heirs of criminal associations. They shouldn't have a place in the modern world.
That's exactly right, although over time "nobility" added a layer of polish and distance which allowed it to pretend that nobles were more refined, more intelligent, and generally better people - when in fact they were just the most successful crooks. This continued all the way through the 20th century, where the disposable deplorables did the fighting while the aristocracy profited. There were even strong links to d…
The upper classes volunteered enthusiastically for WW1 and died in vast numbers in the trenches along with the commoners. Perhaps because they had come to believe their own myths of honour and glory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's one of the reasons the 2nd Amendment was written; to avoid tyrannical rule, and to allow the "peasants" (regular people) to revolt if a tyrant ever took power.
As a European I've always thought that this bit of US law has not aged all that well. Imagine a tyrant takes hold of the US armed forces and uses that to overthrow the rest of government so they can rule alone. The US armed forces have equipment going up to tanks, fighter jets, bombers, drones and nuclear weapons. A militia is going to struggle to field even heavy machine guns, let alone an air force. I doubt they'd…
The militias of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia would disagree.
It’s doable if you have the support of the majority of the population, such as Nazi occupation of France and later US/UK occupation of Germany.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can believe that individual slashes and stabs are ineffective against metal armor, sure. But this video makes it seem like a knight could take down a whole crowd of enemies by himself. This is what fighting that many people at once actually looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CmRo7uECEg Several people knock or drag the victim to the ground while the rest take turns beating him. In the movies when the hero…
The video you linked to is a basically a brawl in the street in the 20th century with non armed combat. Apple to Oranges. I also agree with you about martial arts movie where a single guy takes on 20 people, not very realistic. (however have a look at how a guy can hold off multiple opponents in non armed combat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8_zWBQXZj4 ) Here we are talking about a fully trained knight in his peak…
Taking advantage of their numbers doesn't require experience. Kindergarteners gang up on each other. It's instinct.
> if a knight could be taken down by a bunch of peasants, why did invest so much time and money on knights and armour.
For the same reason we invest in soldiers today. As a group, they can be a formidable force. But if a single one gets mobbed by 20 enemies up close, chances are he's going down no matter how elite or well trained he is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can believe that individual slashes and stabs are ineffective against metal armor, sure. But this video makes it seem like a knight could take down a whole crowd of enemies by himself. This is what fighting that many people at once actually looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CmRo7uECEg Several people knock or drag the victim to the ground while the rest take turns beating him. In the movies when the hero…
Also as metatron's video points out, a knight probably has battle experience, so he knows what works and what doesn't https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=622e3hBcb7s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>quickly the Troubles wrapped up once the bombs started going off in England The Birmingham pub bombings (for example) happened in 1974. The Belfast agreement (ending the troubles so far) was signed in 1998. >requires very strong support from a very sizeable minority (e.g South Africa, Northern Ireland) Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Northern_Ireland . You will note that Northern Ireland has a…
You're getting caught up in the technical details because this is an ideologically driven issue. NA had two minorities with opposite enough ideologies that they got violent. The UK would have never succeeded in keeping the peace there were it not for having a good chunk of the population on "their side". The violence eventually came to mostly an end because the IRA blew up enough crap that the British were willing to…
But, the loyalist factions were the majority, post WW2 it's just for sure that the UK wouldn't have (and certainly wouldn't now) hang around in Northern Ireland, apart from most of the people in Northern Ireland historically wanted to stay as part of the UK. A minority wanted to leave and fought a violent campaign to do so. The minority was ruthlessly discriminated against and terrorized by the majority - which complicated matters to say the least. These issues do not boil down in the way that you indicate, things are complicated. An agreement like the Belfast agreement had been on the table for the IRA for many years - and frankly it's not very favorable, the only major concession that I can think of was the dissolution of the RUC - but is the police service of northern ireland really that different? I mean it is vs the RUC of 1975 (that's for sure) but vs the RUC of 1998? The big issue that the IRA's final spurt of bombing decided was that they didn't disarm before the agreement was negotiated and signed - but instead after it was agreed and signed. The two truck bombs were painful, but Manchester would not be the city it is now without the last one - and docklands doesn't seem to have suffered much tbh. The Bishop's gate bomb in 1993 was probably more economically impactful than either, and there was no hint of compromise after that.
The UK has very limited economic, military or geographic interest in Northern Ireland. The oil was elsewhere, there is fishing - but we are talking $10M's per year at the most there, and most of that goes to NI boats in any case. There's no reason for the UK to be there apart from the fact that a) the bulk of the population think that they are part of the UK and b) the irish government would be in the mire trying to deal with it if it suddenly came to be their job. Without these two factors there wouldn't have been a conflict, because the UK would have dropped it like a hot coal.
People who suggest that knights could be defeated by peasants in one-on-one or even one-on-many combat often overlook that many (or most?) knights spent their time practicing how to kill people in combat. Peasants on the other hand were busy tending to their land or cattle or doing whatever they had to survive. The modern analogy for adult peasant fighting an adult knight would be a bar fight between a random bystand…
Medieval knights were typically very trim and fit; we have existing texts extolling knights to not over eat and go outside and exercise with stones. While kings performing the role of general tended to be fat, the actual men at arms up front doing the dirty work were probably in fantastic shape. There are historical accounts of knights in armor being capable of climbing siege ladders like a pair of monkey bars while…
So without legs? Just pure hands?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The more I hear about this feudalism thing the less I like it.
My view is that nobility were really like gangs that controlled and fought over territory and extorted the common people. So the current nobility are really just the heirs of criminal associations. They shouldn't have a place in the modern world.
Kinda like a mobster turning their money into legit business, and eventually their heirs takes over and people forgetting about how it all started.
People who suggest that knights could be defeated by peasants in one-on-one or even one-on-many combat often overlook that many (or most?) knights spent their time practicing how to kill people in combat. Peasants on the other hand were busy tending to their land or cattle or doing whatever they had to survive. The modern analogy for adult peasant fighting an adult knight would be a bar fight between a random bystand…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also as metatron's video points out, a knight probably has battle experience, so he knows what works and what doesn't https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=622e3hBcb7s
I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying I should defer to the expertise of the knight in your video? I would, but unfortunately he's not a knight. He's an actor.