Toxn Posted June 13, 2016 Report Share Posted June 13, 2016 Just a small whine (on both sides), but I'll note that according to Nick's logic a piece of wood about 1m long with a notch on it to hold the string is the strongest object in the known universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtoBFXSvD6Y Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted June 13, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2016 Everbody run! It's the fun police! Quick, get out or look like you're miserable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 Everbody run! It's the fun police! Quick, get out or look like you're miserable! Snarking in public - 20 years in the iso-cubes for you, citizen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted June 15, 2016 Report Share Posted June 15, 2016 Aw yiss, more discussion of the relative advantages of different weapons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LM-kBOw920 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashbotUS Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 I'm not sure I agree with that two handed parry using the ax, especially against a spear, but the rest seems pretty accurate. With proper ax training, you can hook shields, swords, body parts, and pretty easily disarm someone completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 I'm not sure I agree with that two handed parry using the ax, especially against a spear, but the rest seems pretty accurate. With proper ax training, you can hook shields, swords, body parts, and pretty easily disarm someone completely. Matt sort of dealt with this a bit, but in your opinion why was the axe relatively rare as a weapon? I mean, we know that swords were more like sidearms a lot of the time and the spear was the primary weapon for most of your troops (see also: pikes, halberds etc.) - so does this mean that the one-handed axe simply didn't have a niche to fill? Or is there a good mechanistic reason why an axe isn't all that effective despite having so many nifty qualities? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted June 19, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 Well, axes are rather like shotguns in quite a few ways. Terribly useful peasant weapons that can fill both utilitarian and defensive roles, that have interesting qualities in combat, but are very, very hard to learn to use to their full potential and are much more limited in what they can do than more standard weapons, e.g., spears/rifles. Interestingly, they have also become rough equivalents in video games as "higher damage/slower firing" alternatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 Well, axes are rather like shotguns in quite a few ways. Terribly useful peasant weapons that can fill both utilitarian and defensive roles, that have interesting qualities in combat, but are very, very hard to learn to use to their full potential and are much more limited in what they can do than more standard weapons, e.g., spears/rifles. Interestingly, they have also become rough equivalents in video games as "higher damage/slower firing" alternatives. Interesting that we are both thinking the same thing here. I guess the analogy breaks down a bit when you consider that rifles have one massive advantage over shotguns (range) that simply isn't as prevelant when comparing, say, an axe with a sword, club or short spear. If rifles only got a bit on shotguns in terms of range (say, 100m effective rather than 300m) I'd expect more people to wonder about the relative lack of shotguns in military arsenals as well. Sturgeon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashbotUS Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 Matt sort of dealt with this a bit, but in your opinion why was the axe relatively rare as a weapon? I mean, we know that swords were more like sidearms a lot of the time and the spear was the primary weapon for most of your troops (see also: pikes, halberds etc.) - so does this mean that the one-handed axe simply didn't have a niche to fill? Or is there a good mechanistic reason why an axe isn't all that effective despite having so many nifty qualities? It became less effective later on and so it would be more rare on the field. Maybe as a secondary weapon at that point. Looking at 6-11th century finds, the ax is all over the place. Less so for swords and even less for armor. A one handed ax is good when fighting in units or when fighting people with swords common from that period. The average bland length 70-90cm of a "Viking" age sword doesn't give as much advantage over the ax . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Ancient arms control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rp3nve9CJk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted June 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 More good shit from Lloyd: Belesarius 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted August 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 Lloyd on point: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 Lloyd on point: Minor quibble: I see that he buys into the 'war advances technology' argument. This is one of those ideas that is a bit overstated, to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted August 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 Minor quibble: I see that he buys into the 'war advances technology' argument. This is one of those ideas that is a bit overstated, to say the least. wat Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 wat War advances some aspects of technology, and tends to push some theoretical concepts closer to conception. War manifestly does not advance basic research or (obviously) technologies not related to winning the war. Having dealt with that, I also want to mention that Nick is leaning a bit on the historical anomaly of the second world war for his example. You cannot generalise from that conflict to say that war brings out the best in a society, because this has plainly not been the case for a number of societies which were at war. What you can say (and Nick does) is that war pushes a society in a specific, forceful way. Where he is mistaken is in believing that this is always in one direction (unity, self-sacrifice, bravery), when it can just as easily push a society towards its worst impulses (repression, sacrifice of others, cowardice). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted August 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 War advances some aspects of technology, and tends to push some theoretical concepts closer to conception. War manifestly does not advance basic research or (obviously) technologies not related to winning the war. Having dealt with that, I also want to mention that Nick is leaning a bit on the historical anomaly of the second world war for his example. You cannot generalise from that conflict to say that war brings out the best in a society, because this has plainly not been the case for a number of societies which were at war. What you can say (and Nick does) is that war pushes a society in a specific, forceful way. Where he is mistaken is in believing that this is always in one direction (unity, self-sacrifice, bravery), when it can just as easily push a society towards its worst impulses (repression, sacrifice of others, cowardice). Your position is stupid. Let me explain why. 1. The Manhattan Project would like a word. 2. You didn't listen to what Lloyd said (like, at all, apparently). You took his thesis as "war always brings out the best in everyone". That's stupid and he didn't say that. What he actually said was that the only way to prove the absolute character of people is in war. War is so extreme and terrible that it is paradoxically and tragically also the crucible of virtue and vice, proving one way or another the actual substance of an individual or group. Logically, this means that the final, most absolute proof of a person or group's goodness and merit is war, or at least something equally terrible. 3. He's not just going off World War II, either. Again, if you'd watched the video and paid attention, and especially if you'd watched one of his other recent videos, you'd know that he was also hearkening back to the Greeks, who had a (by today's standards) queer but poignant view of war, and of honor and so forth. Keep in mind, the man is an archaeologist, so I doubt he was particularly tunnel-visioned on the Second World War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 Your position is stupid. Let me explain why. 1. The Manhattan Project would like a word. 2. You didn't listen to what Lloyd said (like, at all, apparently). You took his thesis as "war always brings out the best in everyone". That's stupid and he didn't say that. What he actually said was that the only way to prove the absolute character of people is in war. War is so extreme and terrible that it is paradoxically and tragically also the crucible of virtue and vice, proving one way or another the actual substance of an individual or group. Logically, this means that the final, most absolute proof of a person or group's goodness and merit is war, or at least something equally terrible. 3. He's not just going off World War II, either. Again, if you'd watched the video and paid attention, and especially if you'd watched one of his other recent videos, you'd know that he was also hearkening back to the Greeks, who had a (by today's standards) queer but poignant view of war, and of honor and so forth. Keep in mind, the man is an archaeologist, so I doubt he was particularly tunnel-visioned on the Second World War. 1. The Manhattan Project didn't break new basic theoretical ground so much as pour resources into turning existing, cutting-edge physics into a weapon. It was an engineering marvel, not a scientific advance. 2. I listened, and I get that part of the argument. The problem is that war is both the maker and the made, and societies warp and change in its furnace. You can point to the first world war as the culmination of an otherwise-unacknowledged facet of imperial europe. But you can't really say that it 'revealed' some sort of existential truth about German society pre-1914, or that it 'proved' their inherent character. Because german society at the end of that war was very different to the society that went into it, and would have been different again had the war gone their way. 3. Hearkening, yes. Actually discussing the effects of the peloponnesian war on the societies involved? No. WWII was the only conflict he actually mentioned as an exemplar, and he only mentioned a single viewpoint on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted August 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 1. The Manhattan Project didn't break new basic theoretical ground so much as pour resources into turning existing, cutting-edge physics into a weapon. It was an engineering marvel, not a scientific advance. Oh yeah, absolutely no science was done at Los Alamos. Only engineering. Wait... 2. I listened, and I get that part of the argument. The problem is that war is both the maker and the made, and societies warp and change in its furnace. You can point to the first world war as the culmination of an otherwise-unacknowledged facet of imperial europe. But you can't really say that it 'revealed' some sort of existential truth about German society pre-1914, or that it 'proved' their inherent character. Because german society at the end of that war was very different to the society that went into it, and would have been different again had the war gone their way. You're injecting too much romance into it. Lloyd's point was more straightforward. What will a person do under the most extreme conditions? The only way to truly find out is to put them into those conditions, and the most extreme conditions are found in war. 3. Hearkening, yes. Actually discussing the effects of the peloponnesian war on the societies involved? No. WWII was the only conflict he actually mentioned as an exemplar, and he only mentioned a single viewpoint on it. What a lazy criticism. Watch his other stuff! He talks about the Greeks all the time, and many of the themes he covers ties back into this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 Oh yeah, absolutely no science was done at Los Alamos. Only engineering. Wait... Man, you really like simplifying my points down to nonsensicality sometimes. This was not my argument. You're injecting too much romance into it. Lloyd's point was more straightforward. What will a person do under the most extreme conditions? The only way to truly find out is to put them into those conditions, and the most extreme conditions are found in war. I'm responding to your wording: "War is so extreme and terrible that it is paradoxically and tragically also the crucible of virtue and vice, proving one way or another the actual substance of an individual or group." Actual substance implies an unchanging aspect. I argue that war changes as much as it reveals. Now I'm being too romantic, apparently. What a lazy criticism. Watch his other stuff! He talks about the Greeks all the time, and many of the themes he covers ties back into this point. If the only way to understand his statement is to watch his entire oeuvre, then he didn't make it particularly well. The point stands that he mentions the greeks (in terms of the greek conception of tragedy) then talks exclusively from the English experience of WWII. As often happens in this thread, I think you and I are arguing about trifles. I am fully on board with war being, at least as I think of it, a strong selective pressure by virtue of exactly the means that Lloyd identifies. But I don't fully buy into the 'tragedy' aspect of it, because I don't think war always uncovers some inherent truth in either people or societies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted August 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 rolls eyes whatever bub Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 rolls eyes whatever bub You forgot {pets} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted August 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 You forgot {pets} Disengaging is the last thing Diagonal Sushi would do, and you know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 Disengaging is the last thing Diagonal Sushi would do, and you know it. I'm being spiteful, yes. Dai would also stop to give a lecture about how I lack correct thinking or something as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted August 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 I'm being spiteful, yes. Dai would also stop to give a lecture about how I lack correct thinking or something as well. Nothing like that, I think you're just a terminal contrarian and terribly sloppy with your wording. Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 Nothing like that, I think you're just a terminal contrarian and terribly sloppy with your wording. Both true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.