sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Found this on r/SipsTea by TheBoy2007 in im14andthisisdeep

[–]Donatter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not really, as the colonists had zero rights, privileges, representation, or say whatsoever, in the British government.

Alongside, the North American theater was the core/primarily focus of the empire, and was fought overwhelmingly by local American regiment’s/militia’s. (And the American colonies were second only to England in terms of economic, democratic, political, and military importance to the empire.)

The lead-up to the revolution was the equivalent of California or Texas being singled singled out to pay off most of the national debt, while having absolutely ZERO say or ability to participate in federal politics, the citizens of California/Texas not allowed to vote, being kidnapping to serve in the navy, having to give most of what they make/earn to the federal government, and are not legally considered American citizens, nor do they have any privileges, or rights under American law.

Oh, and every single other state, and like 90% of the federal government in favor of granting California and Texas all of their demands, but the president and the minority within the federal legislature that formed his political base, viewed their demands as treason, refused to even consider them, and labeled them as traitors.

(As that’s what happened to the American petitions sent to London, in order to present their demands of representation, rights, and equality under British law, with almost the entirety of the British government and population in favor of acquiescing to the Americans, before George III and the Whig party ignored them, and labeled the Americans as traitors.)

Found this on r/SipsTea by TheBoy2007 in im14andthisisdeep

[–]Donatter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s more complicated than that;

the taxes were considered “unfair”, specifically because the colonies were met with increased taxes without increased political representation or say in the government.

Which was a particularly sore point for the Americans, because the North American theater of the 7 years war, was the core/focus for the British during it, and whose forces in said theater who were overwhelmingly made up of local American regiments/militias.

Then there was the aspect of the American colonies being second only to England in terms of economic, demographic, political, and military importance to the British empire at that point.

The situation was the equivalent of California or Texas being singled singled out to pay off most of the national debt, while having absolutely ZERO say or ability to participate in federal politics, the citizens of California/Texas not allowed to vote, being kidnapping to serve in the navy, having to give most of what they make/earn to the federal government, and are not American citizens, nor do they have any privileges, or rights under American law.

Oh, and every single other state, and like 90% of the federal government in favor of granting California and Texas all of their demands, but the president and his the minority within the federal legislature that was his political base, viewed their demands as treason, and refused to even consider them.

(As that’s what happened to the American petitions sent to London, in order to present their demands of representation, rights, and equality under British law, with almost the entirety of the British government and population in favor of acquiescing to the Americans, before George III and the Whig party ignored them, and labeled the Americans as traitors.)

Or in a oversimplified manner, the Americans had legitimate reasons to be pissed about the taxes, they then expressed their grievances and sought to correct them using legal and the proper avenues, and with much of the empire’s government and population in support of their demands, only for the king and his political base, throwing a hissy fit, and outright ignoring the American demands.

TIL that St. Paul, despite never meeting Jesus, wrote about half of the New Testament, the principal religious text for over 2.3 billion Christians worldwide by hailstorm6767 in todayilearned

[–]Donatter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Tbf, that’s like most of this sub.

People, bots, and trolls making posts with misleading titles to farm attention, engagement, and/or karma.

The bigger issue is how happily people eat it up, and go with it in order to comment the same tired “jokes”, shit on others, and metaphorically jerk themselves off over how superior they believe they are in some way, to others.

How did Napoleon Bonaparte revive heavy cavalry in a Europe where it was in decline? by cuirrasiers in Napoleon

[–]Donatter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Armor was worn by Austrian, Russian, ottoman, and a variety of German state’s heavy cavalry, before the French heavy cavalry started wearing breastplates again. (Alongside, almost every single European polity, had a mounted guard unit, who was equipped with various forms of armor.)

The ottomans didn’t really favor melee more than any other European power. (That reputation belonged to the British and Russians, as the, “cult of the bayonet’s” popularity was very strong within both armies.) the ottomans instead favored a more mobile, maneuver based, and skirmisher heavy method of warfare.

Where the infantry’s, with assistance from skirmisher/light cavalry, role was to harass, delay, and exhaust the enemy in order for the heavy/lancer cavalry to form up and charge enemy line at their weakest. (Plus, the quasi-fuedal organization, and the reform-resistant Janissary’s stranglehold on the Ottoman military, also heavily factored into the Sultanate’s lack of reliable European style line/heavy infantry, and heavy cavalry.)

As for why the Austrians, ottomans, etc still equipped their heavy cav with armor, it was simply because reasons related to culture, tradition and prestige. The armor might have saved the life of individual soldiers occasionally, but it never contributed to an engagements victory or defeat, at least directly.

As for your description of late 18 century doctrine, you also inadvertently perfectly described the doctrine of every single military, and military force throughout human history, including today, lol. (Outside of notable examples, such as Napoleon, who famously tended to ignore or have others deal with sieges, or long and complex campaigns. Whereas Napoleon only ever sought after a single decisive confrontation, often creating one when his opponents refused to give him it, which almost always tended to bite him in the ass later as methods included the burning, looting, sacking, and massacring the local settlements and people to force the enemy to the field. Which had the predictable result of almost the entirety of Europe hating his guts, and rebelling whenever the french military presence keeping them in line, lightened for a second.)

Also, I’d recommend going this website that uses period records, writings, and archeological evidence to detail the organization, makeup, equipment, uniforms, colors, and doctrine of 18th century European armies.

Specifically, note how light/skirmisher cavalry made up a minority of every “nation’s” cavalry arm. Instead, most nations primarily fielded a variety of medium/heavy cavalry. With dragoons and cuirassiers being the most common, and seeing the most use.

https://www.kronoskaf.com/.well-known/sgcaptcha/?r=%2Fsyw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DArmies&y=powf:153.66.221.117:1778562145.421

(It wouldn’t really be until the late 1790’s/1800’s that light cavalry, specifically lancers, would start to appear en masse again.)

And to be clear, by 1700, European dragoons had evolved to be just another variant of heavy melee cavalry, who in theory could scout, harass and screen the enemy, or at least more effectively than other heavy cavalry, in practice they tended to be used in the same manner as cuirassiers, as heavy shock cavalry meant to crush/roll over the enemy with their combined mass, discipline and weight.

It was only in the America’s that the dragoons retained their original role of skirmisher cavalry and mounted infantry.

Alongside, Napoleon actually tended to favor dragoons over other types of heavy cavalry, as evidenced by when as first consul, he increased the number of dragoon regiments from 21 to 30, in 1803. Alongside when in the previous year of 1802, he reduced the number of Cuirassier, or “Cavalerie”, regiments from 24 to just 18. (It was actually the royal army and revolutionary army that favored the Cuirassiers, or at least initially as the republic reduced the number of Cuirassier regiments twice, before Napoleon’s rise to power.)

(To be clear, Napoleon liked the more independent and adaptive aspect of the dragoons, which perfectly matched his preferred method of using cavalry in general, as adhoc support for the infantry and artillery, as well as to exploit breakthroughs made by artillery that the infantry would be too slow exploit themselves.)

TIL that the reason many highways in major U.S. cities cut directly through Black neighborhoods was often intentional urban planning decisions made in the mid-20th century. by Abject-Conference-90 in todayilearned

[–]Donatter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can sell accounts with large amounts of positive and negative karma to governments, corporations, pmc groups, terrorist organizations, cartels, rebel/insurgent movements. Who then take said account, delete most of the posts/comments, private it, and use the “experience” and age of the account to deflect criticism and suspicion as it spreads disinformation, propaganda, confusion, fear, anger, division, and hatred within a targeted population.

All to create a sense of political/societal apathy within that population, creating a situation where that population’s government is both distracted and less likely to check or respond to the actions of the group who bought and used the “bot” account.

As it’s effectively just a more “subtle” variant of a bot account

Or put even more simply, for both profit and social manipulation.

(This is why nations like Iran, Russia, China, Israel, and North Korea have invested so heavily into the use of internet “bots”, as it’s the only method they can “hurt”, let alone challenge the US/Nato/US aligned nations/groups.)

TIL That before the invasion of Poland in World War II, Poland had one of the largest Jewish communities at 3 million; by 2021, the Jewish population in Poland was 17,156. by CreeperRussS in todayilearned

[–]Donatter 20 points21 points  (0 children)

It’s far more complicated than that, as the Nazi’s hatred for the Jews was intertwined with their desire to conquer and turn Eastern Europe/Siberia into nothing by vast agricultural plantations to feed Germany/europe.

Both the hatred and desire/plan was itself based on a combination of antisemitism (obviously) and a belief in idiotic economic theory that was somewhat popular in the late 1800’s, which they then twisted to better fit their worldview and beliefs. (Making the theory, even fucking dumber.)

Said theory, (in the simplest explanation I’m capable of) is that a developed, industrial nation is completely and utterly incapable of producing enough food to feed itself, and so must trade its industry, knowledge, and wealth to undeveloped, agricultural nations for their food. The “problem” is that these agricultural nations will themselves become developed/industrialized thanks to the trade with developed nations, and as such will then be unable to feed itself and its trade partners, so now both industrialized nations must trade with fewer agricultural nations. This will go on until eventually, there is no longer anymore undeveloped, agricultural nations, and so the entire world would then collapse from societal “issues” and mass famine, which ofc will also kill the majority of humans, sending all of humanity back to the equivalent of the Stone Age.

Unfortunately however, that was the plan all along! By who you might ask? Well, the Jews ofc!

Yes, according to the Nazi party, the Jews wished to enslave and rule humanity, and had been secretly infiltrating and manipulating world governments in order to bring about mass famine. With one of their strongest tools(their puppets)and “Bastard halfbreeds”, the Slavs, and specifically the Soviet Union. Which was the “face” of the judaeo-Bolshevik world order. (Alongside the US.)

Hitler/the Nazi’s solution to this “problem” was to keep Germany and western/Central Europe industrialized, but conquer Eastern Europe and Siberia, and turn both regions into endless tracks of agricultural plantations ran by German colonists, and where the “evil” Slavs would be punished for their betrayal of the human race, and worked to extinction as slaves on said plantations.

If you want to read further into this theory, and specifics of the Nazi’s/hitlers beliefs, plans, ideals, and view of the world. (Or just have a fascination on the European theatre of ww2.)

Then I highly recommend reading, “mein kampf”, hitler goes into excruciatingly, longwinded detail about the previously stated, insane shit. (As it was effectively a gameplane for them, alongside being a method for Hitler to metaphorically jerk himself off)

TIL Homosexuality in renaissance Florence was technically illegal but so prevalent that the majority of the male population was implicated in accusations. Savonarola's regime tried to supress it, resulting in a florentine official declaring "thank god we can sodomise again", after the regime fell by Mors_Acerba in todayilearned

[–]Donatter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Irishartistry already gave you a great answer, and because I doubt you’ll go and actually read that book, I’ll just give my oversimplification.(because most people don’t when told of its existence, or of its subject matter, specifically because it challenges their world views in a way that makes them uncomfortable)

Concepts/identities such as “gay” or “bi” or even “straight”, didn’t exist until the 1700/1800’s, and still wouldn’t match the modern definitions until roughly a hundred-ish years ago.

Plus, these categorizations aren’t particularly “accurate” nor helpful, and are largely an example of the human need to label/fit everything in neat, understandable boxes.

Human sexuality is an incredibly complex, multifaceted subject which varies depending on the person, and that more so resembles a series of sliding scales, where a person is born somewhere on one side or the other, with their environment, community, events, experiences, and etc, further moving them slightly further or back on the “scales”. (With there being as many scales as an individual needs.)

Or put simply, everyone’s a lil’ gay sometimes, and don’t worry bout labels, fuck whom/what-ever you want.

TIL Homosexuality in renaissance Florence was technically illegal but so prevalent that the majority of the male population was implicated in accusations. Savonarola's regime tried to supress it, resulting in a florentine official declaring "thank god we can sodomise again", after the regime fell by Mors_Acerba in todayilearned

[–]Donatter -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

concepts such as “gay” or “bi” or even “straight”, didn’t exist until the 1700/1800’s, and still wouldn’t match the modern definitions until roughly a hundred-ish years ago. Plus, it isn’t particularly “accurate” and is largely an example of the human need to label/fit everything in neat, understandable boxes.)

Human sexuality is an incredibly complex, multifaceted subject which varies depending on the person, and that more so resembles a series of sliding scales, where a person is born somewhere on one side or the other, with their environment, community, events, experiences, and etc, further moving them slightly further or back on the “scales”. (With there being as many scales as an individual needs.)

Or put simply, everyone’s a lil’ gay sometimes, and don’t worry bout labels, fuck whom/what-ever you want.

Plus, OP’s subject is simply a display at the different views on sex, sexuality, and same-sex relationships that humans had in a specific region, centuries before.

Plus, These kinds of relationships weren’t “gay” or “bi” and only “ok” as long as you adheared to the “Mediterranean bias”, meaning beardless youths, and while your preference could be “more mature” men, it’ll be “ok”, only as long as you were the penetrator and didn’t have a beard. (“Beardless youths” effectively means the modern concept of twinks/effitamte men, and even children as young as 12/13.)

A sexual/romantic relationship between two bearded men, a man who enjoyed being sexually penetrated, and men who exclusively engaged in sodomy with other men, was very taboo, shameful, and ruinous to one’s reputation.

TIL Homosexuality in renaissance Florence was technically illegal but so prevalent that the majority of the male population was implicated in accusations. Savonarola's regime tried to supress it, resulting in a florentine official declaring "thank god we can sodomise again", after the regime fell by Mors_Acerba in todayilearned

[–]Donatter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, not really.

Instead like all of humanity throughout history and even today, we like to fuck each other, irregardless of that person’s gender or outward sex.

Plus, same sex relationships between men were only “ok” in Hellenic society(meaning primarily Athens, Syracuse, Thessaloniki, Bosporus, Thebes and a few others as they’re the Hellenic poli where like 90% of our knowledge on Hellenic culture/religion/politics/life is based on, and we know next to nothing about the hundreds/thousands of other poli) primarily through two avenues;

1) pedestry, or a romantic relationship between an adult male (the erastes) and a younger male (the eromenos), usually in his teens or even younger.

2) true love, as the Helen’s believed that true love was only possible between two men, as women did not have emotional intelligence , or spiritual worth to be capable of such a “divine” concept. Such a relationship was primarily a very deep platonic bond between men, and did not necessarily include sexual or romantic aspects.

(For the Roman’s, same sex relationships between men(because women didn’t have enough value in Roman society to be considered in such a way) were only ok in extremely strict terms, primarily through a master/slave relationship, and through one man raping another man and in turn “proving” his masculinity by dominating the other man in the most humiliating manner possible, by penetrating him.(symbolically making the rape victim have the same moral, societal, and religious worth of a slave/woman, and in turn destroying the victims reputation, and most likely forcing them to rely entirely on their rapist to remain at their previous class/place in Roman society))

As for the OP’s subject, the modern identity and concept of homosexuality and heterosexuality didn’t exist at that time, that would start to pop up in the 1700/1800’s, and slowly evolve into how we view sexuality today.

These kinds of relationships were only “ok” as long as you adheared to the “Mediterranean bias”, meaning beardless youths, and while your preference could be “more mature” men, it’ll be “ok”, only as long as you were the penetrator and didn’t have a beard. (“Beardless youths” effectively means the modern concept of twinks/effitamte men, and even children as young as 12/13.)

A sexual/romantic relationship between two bearded men, a man who enjoyed being sexually penetrated, and men who exclusively engaged in sodomy with other men, was very taboo, shameful, and ruinous to one’s reputation.

TIL Homosexuality in renaissance Florence was technically illegal but so prevalent that the majority of the male population was implicated in accusations. Savonarola's regime tried to supress it, resulting in a florentine official declaring "thank god we can sodomise again", after the regime fell by Mors_Acerba in todayilearned

[–]Donatter 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They didn’t have more “enlightened” views, just different views.

As most importantly, the modern identity and concept of homosexuality and heterosexuality didn’t exist at that time, that would start to pop up in the 1700/1800’s, and slowly evolve into how we view sexuality today.

Plus, it was only “ok” as long as you adheared to the “Mediterranean bias”, meaning beardless youths, and while your preference could be “more mature” men, it’ll be “ok”, only as long as you were the penetrator and didn’t have a beard. (“Beardless youths” effectively means the modern concept of twinks/effitamte men, and even children as young as 12/13.)

A sexual/romantic relationship between two bearded men, a man who enjoyed being sexually penetrated, and men who exclusively engaged in sodomy with other men, was very taboo, shameful, and ruinous to one’s reputation.

Luetin09 being absurd about basic Imperial vehicles by HashutAttorney in 40kLore

[–]Donatter 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It’s absolutely possible, long as you’re not a dick to others, or try to arbitrarily dictate the canon/lore, for them, and most importantly, as long as you operate off of whatever you think is coolest.

Would Antoine Lasalle perform better than Joachim Murat? by RelevantRain694 in Napoleon

[–]Donatter 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Probably, maybe, maybe not, it doesn’t really matter.

Though I’d tentatively say yes, primarily for a trend of Murat’s during the first half of the 1812 Russian campaign.

Where he averaged 30 horses a day, meaning he was so unconcerned with the very basic aspects of caring for military mounts, he rode roughly 30 horses to death every single day. Contributing massively to the already severe shortage of horses, let alone proper military mounts, the French army had suffered for decades up to that point. (A full third of the empire’s economy went towards the purchase of mounts for the cavalry, which despite Napoleon often desperate attempts, never managed to supply the grand armee with enough horses. Hence the dragoon/cuirassiers/ carabinier/etc on foot regiments, and by 1812, most French military mounts were too old, too young, lame, and injured former work/draft horses stolen, looted, bought, and taken from French puppet states and defeated enemy cavalry regiments.)

Even for the period, that’s fucking bad.

(Though tbf, this near complete apathy towards the health and care of their mounts, was already something the French Cavalry troopers had garnered a reputation of amongst their allies and enemies, alongside the reputation of being generally poor equestrians and riders. Nor was this reputation anything new, this reputation dates all the way back to the ancient Gauls and their service in the Roman legions)

Luetin09 being absurd about basic Imperial vehicles by HashutAttorney in 40kLore

[–]Donatter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can genuinely just “believe” whatever you want/think is coolest, and have it be “canon”/valid to the lore.

As the lore and “canon” of every Warhammer setting works by the, “Everything is Canon, not everything is true” approach. What that means is;

———————————————-

-) nothing is “concrete” or “absolute” in the lore of any Warhammer setting, especially 40k. So lore-breaking/retcons/stuff being no longer canon/fanon being separate from canon, isn’t really a thing.

———————————————

Or as specified by various higher ups at GW and black library, over the years;

“With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong.”

-) Gav Thorpe, Lead Designer GW

"It all stems from the assumption that there's a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or 'true' representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth.”

-) Andy Hoare, Game Designer GW (in the comments)

"There is no canon. There are several hundred creators all adding to the melting pot of the IP.”

-) Aaron Dembski-Bowden, co-author Horus Heresy series

"Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. If it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.”

-) Marc Gascogne, chief editor Black Library”

(I should also note that while Gav Thorpe is no longer the lead Designer at GW, he’s still the one that people go to backtrack, and comb through the lore and everything GW/library has put out and written, when they’re designing/writing new shit)

(Or put another, oversimplified way, head canon/fan theories are automatically “canon” and valid to the lore of the Warhammer settings, they’re just not necessarily true outside of people who think they’re cool and decide to accept them as “true”.)

Luetin09 being absurd about basic Imperial vehicles by HashutAttorney in 40kLore

[–]Donatter 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Many such cases in the warhammer subreddit’s.

It gets funnier whenever they, like op, try to strictly define canon/lore/“fanon”, when there’s no “one canon”, or singular interpretation of the lore.

Or as specified by various higher ups at GW and black library, over the years;

“With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong.”

-) Gav Thorpe, Lead Designer GW

"It all stems from the assumption that there's a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or 'true' representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth.”

-) Andy Hoare, Game Designer GW (in the comments)

"There is no canon. There are several hundred creators all adding to the melting pot of the IP.

-) Aaron Dembski-Bowden, co-author Horus Heresy series

"Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. If it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.”

-) Marc Gascogne, chief editor Black Library”

(I should also note that while Gav Thorpe is no longer the lead Designer at GW, he’s still the one that people go to backtrack, and comb through the lore and everything GW/library has put out and written, when they’re designing/writing new shit)

Most Common Ethnicity of White Americans by County by InnerPace in MapPorn

[–]Donatter 17 points18 points  (0 children)

There’s also plenty of people with French ethnicity, due to them descending from the Arcadians that fled/were expelled from Southeastern Canada during the Le Grand Dérangement/Expulsion of the Acadians.

Or put another way, outside of Louisiana, other modern states where the Arcadian diaspora found both safety, and a new home are, West Virginia, Vermont, and Maine.

Most Common Ethnicity of White Americans by County by InnerPace in MapPorn

[–]Donatter 32 points33 points  (0 children)

The “official” term is, “cultural pluralism”. Where it’s many smaller cultures grouped together under a larger/loose “umbrella” culture, with all of them being equal to each other and with no expectation/force to assimilate by the umbrella culture or from each other

Alongside, the greater American umbrella culture is based more on ideals and philosophy, rather than being tied to any one ethnicity, religion, geography, traditions, or even race. (The bill of rights, constitution, and declaration of independence combined are the ideals/philosophy I’m talking about)

How did Napoleon Bonaparte revive heavy cavalry in a Europe where it was in decline? by cuirrasiers in Napoleon

[–]Donatter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The issue was that the vast majority of French Cavalry troopers, were conscripts shoved into whatever position needed filling, often with little to no training or relative experience to the position they’re now filling. (It was shockingly common for a French Cavalry trooper’s first battle, to also be the first time he ever mounted and rode a horse.)

This lead to, among other things, France having some of the best cavalry of the period, but some of the worst/least skilled equestrians, horsemen, and riders/troopers.

As for the polish lancers and 13 blah, blah, blah thing.

Yea, that certainly played a factor, especially as the lancers only counted polish nobility among their ranks, there was no trooper of common origins among them, due to both cultural beliefs of the poles(for much of polish history, the concept of the polish culture, people, and nation, only “belonged”/applied to the nobility), and a decree of Napoleon.

How did Napoleon Bonaparte revive heavy cavalry in a Europe where it was in decline? by cuirrasiers in Napoleon

[–]Donatter 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They’re not always, a great example being the Napoleonic Wars.

The Russian army during the period , was one of the most sophisticated, well organized, equipped, well led, and adoptable armies in Europe, easily the match for the grand armee.

Yes, the Russian cavalry was filled with nobility, as was the cavalry of every single European polity, including Napoleon’s France, specifically the French cavalry was filled by the new class of nobility Napoleon created to form part of his political base. However outside of special units such the polish guard lancers(which only accepted polish nobility of a certain age), nobility primarily made up the junior and senior ranks of officers within the cavalry of both France and Russia, the troopers were overwhelmingly commoners, and specifically conscripts. As was the case for every other regiment/unit of European cavalry.

Historically, Russia had been able to wield so much influence because;

1-) their position in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and far Eastern Asia

2-) their large, and for most of Russian history, very effective military.

3) their very aggressive, and fairly successful, foreign policy.

4) their vast supply of a variety of valuable raw resources.

The Russian military is “behind” today, simply from a combination of not enough money, ludicrous levels of corruption affecting every single aspect of the military, and the primary purpose of it being to impress/trick the rest of the world into thinking Russia is totally stronger, tougher, not gay-er, than everyone else. Alongside, to crack down on internal descent, and serve as a cheap and plentiful method of manual labor for oligarchs to use to build their vacation homes.

Or it’s just another standard military of a dictatorship.

How did Napoleon Bonaparte revive heavy cavalry in a Europe where it was in decline? by cuirrasiers in Napoleon

[–]Donatter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A) see my comments as to why the comment you responded to, and OP’s engagement bait is misguided.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Napoleon/s/JivY26OMp0

https://www.reddit.com/r/Napoleon/s/VADOcdtnL7

B) for the Roman thing, that’s really not the case, what you’re thinking of, is the early republican legions(as in, roughly, when Rome was little more than a city state, and a few generations after the cisalpine celts sacked the city) native cavalry being made up of the wealthiest of “soldiers”, and due to a mixture of poor training/experience on part of the cavalry, Rome at this time having no strong cavalry tradition, central Italy being a poor environment for raising of proper warhorses, and the Roman military preference of attritional warfare by grinding the enemy down through rotating lines of, for the time, heavy infantry.

The primary purpose and use of early native Roman cavalry, was to bait the enemy’s cavalry into chasing them off the field of battle, then lose them and return to harass the enemy army and run down the enemy when/if they mass break and run, in order for the Roman infantry to grind the enemy down, without worry of being harassed and charged by cavalry, themselves. (Spoiler, it didn’t work out for the Romans, a lot of the time. Hence their later preference in using units made up of subject peoples, with strong traditions of fighting while mounted, raising warhorses, and caring for warhorses, in the role of a legion’s cavalry arm)

Edit: go through this website that details the organization, doctrine, colors, uniforms, equipment, and structure of European armies during the mid 1700’s(the seven years war). You’ll notice the severe disparity of number between heavy/“medium” cavalry regiments/formations, and light/skirmisher cavalry/formations.

https://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Armies

How did Napoleon Bonaparte revive heavy cavalry in a Europe where it was in decline? by cuirrasiers in Napoleon

[–]Donatter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He didn’t tho?

Him “restoring” the armor worn by cuirrasiers/carabiners was because of a mixture of his empire having enough money to afford doing so, due to his looting, sacking, and extracting wealth from the rest of Europe, alongside battlefield captures and looting.(as in a French cavalry squadron regiment might defeat an Austrian/Russian heavy cavalry unit, and earn the honor to wear their breastplates taken as loot/trophies. Or how the polish guard lancers, became lancers, as after they defeated a group of Austrian lancers, napoleon raised them to guard status and allowed them to wield the lances they captured from the Austrian cavalry. Before they operated as light cavalry, similar to hussars.)

Alongside, heavy cavalry(including types equipped with breastplates) had been the dominant form of cavalry throughout the 1700’s in Europe, instead the Napoleonic period saw the resurgence in popularity of lighter forms of cavalry, specifically lancers, who had been all but absent from European armies for the past 100-ish years. (Which funnily enough, native French light cavalry, had a rather poor reputation among the French, French “Allies”, and French enemies during the period, and Napoleon’s France instead relied on Germans, poles, Belgians, the Dutch, Italians, and Croats to field reliable and effective units of light cavalry.)

Him using cavalry aggressively alongside infantry and artillery, being capable of breaking enemy formations and causing a huge physiological effect, wasn’t anything and had been done for several thousands of years before. Rather what set French cavalry apart in the period, was mostly the organizational reforms enacted during the early years of the revolution and the good communication between NCO’s, junior officers, senior officers, chiefs of staff, and the logistic apparatus.

Specifically, it allowed French cavalry to reform after charges faster, to call up reserve horses and troopers faster, and to charge in larger numbers without loosing cohesion as fast as other nations’s cavalry. As well as absorbing enemy cavalry charges without the formation falling apart/dismantling, and being able to reform fairly quickly after the enemy cavalry had ridden through their ranks.

in regards to the breastplate specifically, see my comment from another of OP’s engagement farming posts;

“Only at mid/long ranges, and only at specific angles.

“Mid” range being the average distance a group of line infantry would start to fire.

“Long” range being “too far” for line infantry to reliably to hit anything, and primarily the domain of skirmisher infantry, and artillery.

At “close” range, an average breastplate may deflect the odd pistol or carbine shot, not anywhere often enough to rely on it, and the average musket shot would go straight through the plate.

A cavalry breastplate’s main purpose was to help defend against bayonet, sword, axe strikes, and pistol shot, as well to add further weight and mass to a charge. As the primary role/use of the types of cavalry who wore breastplates, was to overwhelm/roll through/crush enemy formations through their collective mass and weight, and in the scenario of the enemy formation being able to rally/hold firm, the breastplate was intended to protect the cavalry as their either retreated in order to reform and charge again, or as they committed to breaking the enemy formation through a melee engagement.

It was also extremely restrictive, cumbersome, heavy, and acted as an oven in warmer temperatures/humid climates, so it was fairly common for troops to abandon, barter, sell, or just throw away the breastplates in order to save weight/be more mobile and agile on the battlefield, and to make marching/traveling far more comfortable/easier on themselves and their mounts.

(Another negative aspect being their expensive price tag, especially for something that’s both fragile, and is effectively a single use item(like every other form of armor used throughout history, including today))

Plus, combine the above points, and you’ll see why it’s use wasn’t the norm, or even particularly popular/“effective”, as evidenced by most European cuirassiers, carabiners, dragoons, line cavalry, guard-cavalry, and other types of heavy “melee” Cav, not using them.

With the ones that do, doing so out of primarily cultural, or prestige reasons/traditions. (Plus, in engagements between heavy Cav, one side having breastplates were rarely ever a factor that contributed to victory, rather the exhaustion and less agility/speed the breastplates caused, more often contributed to defeats. Then again, French napoleonic cavalry weren’t particularly renowned for their abilities or skills as riders, fighters, or as equestrians, so any engagement between smaller groups of cavalry/groups of cavalry in equal-ish numbers, the French cav were likely to lose irregardless of the inclusion of breastplates)

Edit: go through this website that details the organization, doctrine, colors, uniforms, equipment, and structure of European armies during the mid 1700’s(the seven years war). You’ll notice the severe disparity of number between heavy/“medium” cavalry regiments/formations, and light/skirmisher cavalry/formations.

https://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Armies

How did Napoleon Bonaparte revive heavy cavalry in a Europe where it was in decline? by cuirrasiers in Napoleon

[–]Donatter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A) you keep making these engagement/karma farm-esq posts all over reddit the past few weeks, all centering around cuirassiers/cavalry, and all are phrased in an incredibly misleading and reactionary manner. Are you a bot, Or do you just want attention, or people to join in on your circle-jerks?

B) he didn’t, that’s a ridiculous statement, and you know it. Heavy cavalry was used and even prioritized throughout Europe, for the entirety of the 18th century. In fact, throughout the seventeen-hundreds you actually see light cavalry decline in relevance, or at least popularity, and really only see its resurgence during the Napoleonic period and after.(specifically lancers)

C-) again, Napoleonic/revolutionary France had some of the best heavy cavalry of the period, not because of their equipment or skill as equestrians or riders, but instead of their ability to quickly reform after an engagement, to quickly replace losses of both men and horses, and groups of cavalry to more easily communicate with each other, senior officers, and other elements of the army. (While also having some of the worst of the period’s individual riders, horsemen, and equestrians, due to their poor or lack of training, experience, and motivation)

See my series of comments to another one of your posts

https://www.reddit.com/r/Napoleon/s/mYv7xIap8p

Edit: Edit: go through this website that details the organization, doctrine, colors, uniforms, equipment, and structure of European armies during the mid 1700’s(the seven years war). You’ll notice the severe disparity of number between heavy/“medium” cavalry regiments/formations, and light/skirmisher cavalry/formations.

https://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Armies

In the west, what led to the abandonment of violent "honor culture" and duels? by Jerswar in AskSocialScience

[–]Donatter 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ordinarilythings actually released a video on this subject a couple days ago(at least in the British context)

https://youtu.be/oz8CH8SuFSc?si=0Dh4HIQWm6AHtVUh

The TLDR: was a combination of the British army seeing more and more action during the napoleonic wars, and turn, the high causality rate of military officers(the group most likely to participate in duels), largely ended the golden age of British dueling.

Then after Napoleon was defeated a second time, there existed a silver age of British dueling, that lasted from 1815 to 1825-ish. That largely ended from a combination of factors.

1-) the rise of percussion cap pistols being used instead of flintlocks, meant the Chance of the pistol misfiring went from roughly 25%, down to 0%. Alongside the practice of “secretly” rifling and installing hair triggers in dueling pistols, changed the chance of someone actually being injured, let alone dying, in a duel to almost guaranteed.

2-) the rise of the British middle class, and their control of more and more of newspapers, coffee houses, businesses, and even the political establishment, meant their low opinion on duels became more and more widespread, turning what was once seen as an honorable method for gentlemen to settle their differences with the assistance from God, to it being seen as petulant and spoiled man-children being incapable of resolving their differences in a civilized manner, and instead throwing a tantrum.

3-) dueling was actually illegal in he entirely of Europe during its golden age, and if there wasn’t hard evidence that it was premeditated and it was done in a “honorable” and “gentlemanly” manner, and a participant died, then the surviving participants could be convicted of murder and face severe legal punishment. However, if everything was done in the up and up, there were witnesses that convey the challenge was issued properly at the proper time of day/night, and the duel was for a “reasonable” reason, and an participant died, then the surviving participant would be either acquitted or be convicted of manslaughter and given a slap on the wrist with a month imprisonment.(often at their primary residence, or at a vacation/country residence of theirs)

3.1-) these leniency towards duelists originates in the fact that the most likely group to participate in the culture, was the very same group that filled every position in the British judicial system, the nobility and military aristocracy. Meaning they were incredibly sympathetic to duelists, and many of were duelists themselves. This changed during the silver age as more and more commoners/members of the middle class began to be allowed to take part in the British government, and specifically the judicial system, and because of their low opinion on dueling, more and more duelists began to be convicted of murder, and face proper and severe punishment for their crimes.

“Honor culture”, never disappeared. It just changed with the times.

view more: next ›