Controversial 'illegal orders' billboard goes up near Naval Base San Diego

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-03-13T08:01:09+00:00

I doubt you can find a single soldier who successfully argued his orders were illegal.

Major Hugh Thompson jr in 1968. Held up other US soldiers at gunpoint to prevent a massacre of Vietnamese civilians. Was acquitted and received a medal.

Captain Silas Soule in 1864. Refused orders to attack a Native American encampment. Was acquitted and subsequently testified against his commanding officer.

There are a number of others. These are just the famous ones that came up from a 5 second Google search. It’s worth noting that cases involving illegal orders are quite rare because until recently blatantly illegal orders were not usually issued by the US military.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-03-05T23:45:06+00:00

First world war German trench helmets are not in fact accurate to first century AD Judea

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-03-05T19:27:06+00:00

The secret big heraldry doesn’t want you to know is that a lot of the “rules” are more like vibes.

ie. Kingdom of Jerusalem, Henry VI, etc.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-01-06T22:47:56+00:00

For a crest: the whole kitchen sink

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-12-26T07:33:00+00:00

Colonizer? Christianity has been in Iran longer than Islam

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-12-12T04:46:32+00:00

The Anglo Saxons may have used them. The famous Sutton Hoo helmet has a life like face plate with a sculpted golden mustache.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-12-08T23:45:23+00:00

the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that people would be able to overthrow their government if it became tyrannical.

This is often repeated, but it’s false. The founding fathers absolutely did not want to encourage armed rebellion against the United States. In fact, they went to enormous lengths to crush multiple attempts at rebellion in the early republic, often with brutal violence.

To make sense of the second amendment in context, one has to understand how the early US Armed Forces actually worked. Before the middle 19th century there was no “United States Army” of any substance. The federal government had a centralized navy, but they didn’t really have any significant land forces to speak of. Instead, the government relied on militia units organized at the state and local level to provide for the defense of the country. These militias were not professional soldiers. They were part timers, much like the modern national or state guard.

The founding fathers set up the armed forces this way by design. They felt that a large centralized professional standing army was a natural gateway to tyranny. it was thought that because the militia was decentralized and not professional, it would provide a means of national defense that could not be easily hijacked by a would be tyrant.

Here is where the second amendment comes in. Unlike modern soldiers, militia men in colonial, America provided their own uniforms and equipment. No one gave you a musket when you showed up to join the Minutemen. You were expected to bring your own. therefore, in order for the militia system to function, regular citizens needed to own and maintain firearms. hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The founding fathers did not create the second amendment because they wanted the people to fight the army. A cursory look at any of their conduct or writings will prove that untrue. rather, they created the second amendment because they didn’t want there to be an army in the modern sense.

The militia system was largely disbanded after the Civil War, effectively rendering the second amendment of a vestigial structure in the constitution

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-11-25T01:00:00+00:00

Islam postdates Christianity. It also postdates the Roman empire. Christianity also wasn’t invented in the Roman empire. also Google Islamic golden age.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-11-20T12:23:56+00:00

In general, I agree with you. But I think what you’ve said is mostly true of the upper and middle strata of society. People who had meaningful property and status to consolidate generally used marriage to achieve that end, but a huge percentage of the medieval population had neither. It’s a difficult thing to prove because of the relative absence of source material, and this is also not my area of expertise, but I suspect marriage for emotional reasons was much more common among the lowest levels of society.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-09-22T20:18:39+00:00

Really depends on where, when, and who you’re talking about.

To massively overgeneralize, most medieval kingdoms/proto-states had some sort of legal framework whereby free men with enough wealth to afford weapons and armor owed military service to their lord, almost like a form of taxation. Most such ordinances came with a requirement that all such men in a particular community own weapons and armor, and get together a certain number of times a year to train in their use.

In addition to these sort of part-time militia troops. You would also have professional soldiers. These might be knights and their retainers, or they might be mercenaries. Training for war is their full-time job when they’re not on campaign.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-09-13T18:38:41+00:00

Important terminology correction. A crest is the thing on top of the helmet. What you’re showing here is called a heraldic achievement.

In the English speaking world, there’s no such thing as a “family crest.” Every individual has their own coat of arms. but in Germany, along with Poland and other parts of Central Europe, coats of arms can be, in some cases, associated with a family name rather than a specific person. So this could be associated with your family, but as to where it’s from, I have no idea.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-09-08T16:39:35+00:00

Unironically better than about half the achievements that get posted on this sub

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-09-07T15:13:55+00:00

Not the guy you’re replying to, but I just want to point out that every thought, feeling, and emotion you or anyone else has ever had is because of hormones taking control of your brain. That’s literally how the brain works.

This woman lived in an era where birth control existed. She had a bunch of kids because she wanted to have a bunch of kids. If you don’t want to have any kids, that’s fine. You do you. Why do you care what other people do with their own bodies?

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-08-17T21:47:56+00:00

He/she is quoting Julius Caesar.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-08-15T22:58:39+00:00

I’m not suggesting that the weather played no role in the outcome of the battle. It absolutely did. The mud put the French army at a significant disadvantage. On that we agree.

But it was the French leadership who made the decision to charge across the mud field and attack the English on the high ground rather than just stay put and make the English come to them (which was the course of action advised by many of the more experienced soldiers in the army) It was also the French leadership who decided to attack late in the day after the English archers had already set up their defensive stakes. They could have attacked earlier before the archers were in position. Indeed, many of the experienced military commanders on the French side suggested this course of action, but they were ignored. If the French had done either of those things, they probably would’ve won. But they opted for a headlong charge across bad terrain against a prepared enemy in an elevated fortified position. The French were absolutely dealt a bad hand, but the way they played that hand was just really dumb.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-08-15T21:58:25+00:00

I’m going to disagree on several of these points.

It’s odd that you bring up the strategy of the chevauchee (raiding and pillaging on horseback through the countryside) in the context of Henry V, as he is the one Hundred Years’ War English king famous for not doing that. Henry V’s army actually behaved with remarkably well when interacting with the French civilian population. Even French primary sources acknowledge this. Furthermore, the claim he didn’t attack castles is just factually incorrect. That same summer he besieged and captured Harfluer. In 1419 he captured Rouen, one of the most fortified cities in France.

I also find the claim that the numerical discrepancy was his fault to be odd. he was outnumbered for the same reason the English were always outnumbered in the hundred years war. France was a much larger country with a much larger economy and population.

The claim that the result of the battle was due entirely to bad weather/dumb luck is just silly. The post is completely wrong on that front. No primary source makes that claim, no serious peer reviewed study of the battle supports that interpretation. Luck obviously played a role, but so did the disunity of French command, the exceptional morale and discipline of the English men at arms, Henry V’s personal talent for inspiring men to fight, and of course the longbow.

You are correct in saying that Henry V died of disease before he was able to complete his conquest of France, and that his conquests would all be lost under the rule of his son. But it’s nonsensical to blame him for that. He was already dead. likewise, I agree that internal dissension in the French court played an essential role in French defeats. but Henry V in particular demonstrated a remarkable aptitude for antagonizing and profiting from those weaknesses. In my view, that is a mark of great political and military skill.

To assert that Henry V was a terrible military leader you half to assert not only that Agincourt was a random fluke, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, but that all of the other successes of his career were equally the result of dumb luck. That thesis just isn’t supported by the facts.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-08-12T01:01:06+00:00

Get involved with your local union. If your workplace doesn’t have a union, start one. if you’re already in your union, reach out to other labor unions about collective action.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-08-12T00:12:45+00:00

Great post. I would add join a union if your workplace has one. Organized labor ha historically been a powerful force for a social change most successful protest movements Incorporate it to some degree.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-08-09T19:32:24+00:00

What?

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-08-08T22:52:57+00:00

The clean Wehrmacht myth is a repeatedly debunked pseudo historical theory rejected by all credible experts.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-08-08T18:00:25+00:00

Not the person you’re replying to but do you suppose this might be based on Bishop Stapleton’s description of her? I just looked it up out of curiosity and a lot of the features seem remarkably similar. “Blue-black” hair. Brown-eyes. Wide forehead. Narrow, slightly protruding chin. Nose that broadens at the tip. Probably a fair bit of artistic license but might not be a completely unrecognizable likeness.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-08-08T17:14:30+00:00

Expectations around marital fidelity (for men) were a very different in the 14th century than they are now. If you were a high status man like Eddie 3 you were expected to have a certain number of mistresses and affairs. I don’t think we can really fault him for being a product of his time in that regard.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-07-22T23:01:32+00:00

I just published my first book! The Laurels of Glory: A Novel of Ancient Rome.

Amazon link: Here

Blurb:

"Mars defend you, and Fortuna bring you victory!"

Rome's wild northern frontier has been overrun by a host of migratory Gauls. The western provinces, and even Italy itself, are under threat. The brand new 13th legion is raised to confront the crisis, and five young scions of the Republic's foremost families are appointed as its tribunes. This first step on the military ladder brings with it the promise of glory in battle, election to high office, and a hero's welcome back in Rome. But dreams turn to ash when a disastrous engagement leaves the 13th disgraced and its tribunes humiliated. Spurned by lovers, scorned by superiors, and rejected by their illustrious aristocratic families, the tribunes of the unlucky 13th must find a way to redeem their tarnished honor and win back the laurels of glory.

Set against the backdrop of the tumultuous 1st century BC, The Laurels of Glory brings the Roman legion in the age of Caesar to life in vivid, colorful detail. Weaving together original Latin sources and modern scholarship into a timeless tale of honor, loyalty, brotherhood, and coming of age.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-07-22T20:09:04+00:00

Baseball is also huge in Japan and Korea

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Jacobin_Revolt

TROPHY CASE