Posted on 08/27/2011 6:37:40 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
“Yeah, I grok that.”
Once again, Heinlein hits the nail on the head!
“Author Robert A. Heinlein coined the term in his best-selling 1961 book Stranger in a Strange Land. In Heinlein’s view, grokking is the intermingling of intelligence that necessarily affects both the observer and the observed. From the novel:
‘Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science—and it means as little to us (because of our Earthling assumptions) as color means to a blind man.’ “
France had been united for almost 300 years before Napoleon had any power. Maybe you are thinking of Germany.
The French learned from experience and also bought the support of the Burgondians. French nationalism and population beat English tactical advantages.
Perhaps....it’s hard to remember what consisted of “The Empire” without doing an intensive Google search or hitting my book collection....but a “united” France 300 years before Napoleon......
Henry V moved against Kingdom of Normandy, and when he was repelled by force (and dysentery) and moved up the Somme River toward eventual victory at Agincourt....and keep in mind that Agincourt was another battle in the 100 Years War.
Complex stuff, but fascinating....
I agree. It seems to have been based on the arrogance of their armored knights.
Bastages! I hate the Burgondians.
This facet of arms training for the period of time may also have led to the myth of Richard the III's so-called "hunchback". The greater muscle and bone build-up on his right side, according to this theory, gave him the one-sided built-up appearance that was eventually propagandized by old Will Shakespeare (who, after all, knew which side of the Tudor bread his butter was on) in his play.
“Evil doesn’t have a day job.”
Good one. Putting it in my glossary.
“Evil doesn’t have a day job.”
Good one. Putting it in my glossary.
“There were three types of armor - Parade Armor - ceremonial, Armor for the Tournament - which was REALLY heavy and protective and Field Armor - lighter in weight and designed for use in Combat.
That’s the first thing that leapt to my mind: did they ascertain the accurate weight of the armor actually worn?
“I swear, I just don’t understand how the English lost the 100 Years War...”
Ever read Mark Twain’s version of the story of Joan of Arc? It’s available free on line.
Consider the Scottish Claymore:
The last known battle in which it is considered to have been used in a significant number was the Battle of Killiecrankie in 1689.[You gotta love that name for a battle]
It was somewhat smaller than other two-handed swords of the era. The average claymore ran about 140 cm (55 in) in overall length, with a 33 cm (13 in) grip, 107 cm (42 in) blade, and a weight of approximately 5.5 lb (2.5 kg).[citation needed]
Try swinging that all day.
I see shows about military training and the soliders are loaded like pack mules. I always wondered why they carry so much stuff.
In combat, lighter is better. German troops in WW2 carried very little. Also US troops in the same war carried the bare minium.
Dry socks, rations, grenades, watter and ammo.Ponchos for shelters and there you go.
Nowadays, as in medieval times, modern armies have to contend with primitive infrastructure since they aren't fighting in Western Europe, usually.
Not contesting the findings but the folks in those days lived for battle and they were a heck of a lot stronger for whatever armor they wore than today's "test volunteers"........
The Soldaten didnt carry much because he didnt have much. Aside from this breadbag,E-tool{very handy for close quarter combat},canteen,ammo pouches and Zelt{ Shelter quarter which can be used for a rain poncho,very cool item}.
That Gas-can that held a gas mask was used to carry extra ammo, rations and other goodies. Often German soliders ditched the gas mask but could get in trouble if some Officer had a bug up his rear and checked. inside his tunic was a pocket for a bandage. Pretty basic and simple stuff.
You see soliders today carrying sleeping bags, sleeping mats and other nice to have but very heavy gear. Sometimes simple is better.
It is a great placename.
Some of these battles lasted a long while. Most were over in a couple of hours at the most. Frequently, the main combat lasted under an hour and was decisive, and the rest of the combat consisted of skirmishes between remnants of the defeated force and those sent to round them up / finish them off.
The really large battles didn’t start to take the better part of a day until masses of troops became enormous, a process accelerated by improvements in firearms.
Interesting sidebar, regarding the Battle of Stamford Bridge — the consequences of not wearing one’s armor was clear, but the Norse reinforcements who finally arrived in their armor mostly collapsed from their march weighed down by it, and in the heat that day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge
Think M-14 for rounds, earlies, it seems that you people had an obcession with cleanliness, never saw a flack jacket until my second tour with a Cav unit.
Common soldiers would likely wear stiff, boiled leather armor. They would have wooden shields and leather or fur caps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.