|
|
Post by Spellca on Dec 11, 2010 20:40:26 GMT -5
www.snakeblocker.com/index.htmlI will leave that there. I can't prove anything more but I do believe people born and raised Apache and taught combat techniques of the people should be more credible than not. I agree that more history should be included but I believe we can leave it at that. I am much more interested in a situation between Apache and Roman soldiers. I believe the Romans could have an obvious upper-hand in armor, their shield is obvious better equipped to handle arrows and close range blows, the gladius is an extremely effective blade but also calvary forces (if present) would ravage pre-Europeon invasion Apache. If the Apache can be like the Aztecs, the introduction of horses on the battlefield was horrifying to them. They never seen them because horses in North America were hunted to extinction by Paloe-Indians or just early natives. From what I know, the Aztecs were confused by horses - they couldn't really tell where the man ended and the animal began. If it would be any similar to the Apache it would be a slaughter psychologically - using fear to fight is great but doesn't work against something you might literally define as a monster. I think Roman forces against Apache tribes would be interesting. Early on it would be a slaughter in Rome's favor, soon it would even out as the Apache's adapt and use more distance but ultimately I can see Roman armies winning the war and defeating the Apache.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 11, 2010 21:04:54 GMT -5
www.snakeblocker.com/index.htmlI will leave that there. I can't prove anything more but I do believe people born and raised Apache and taught combat techniques of the people should be more credible than not Except there is three problems: 1- He has no history education whatsoever 2-His Apache raised training is none existent. His real training is modern spec ops training according to his resume. He wasn't trained in real apache training, just spec ops training 3-He was born this century thus he doesn't have access to any of the context that would allow him to speak about apache of the pre-colonial era. Really, this guy is not fit to give a history lesson. He can speak of guerilla warfare sure and ambush tactics and all that. But beyond that, his opinion has no value. Look at his resumé. He is a modern soldier who happens to be Apache, that is all. If the Apache can be like the Aztecs, their culture and approach to warfare were very, very different. From what I know, the Aztecs were confused by horses - they couldn't really tell where the man ended and the animal began. That is a myth, the reason cavalry was so devastating is that their tactics did not include them, not that they couldn't understand the concept or imagine what it is. When someone fields a weapon you have never fought against that gives an immense advantage, you're screwed regardless of if you can understand it. You don't have the skills or weaponry to deal with it. But natives quickly adopted horses, the mapuché indians had cavalry as early as 1584. This is because many herds of horse brought by the Spanish escaped, ran wild and then spread across america (also the origin of mustang and feral horse herds in america). The Cheyenne tribe is a good example. I think Roman forces against Apache tribes would be interesting. Early on it would be a slaughter in Rome's favor, soon it would even out as the Apache's adapt and use more distance but ultimately I can see Roman armies winning the war and defeating the Apache. None of the tactics of the Apache would have been new to them. Their battles in north Africa, in their east European borders and on the British isles provided ample training against guerrilla warfare tactics very similar to that used by Apache. Not to mention the conquest of Gaul taught them a lot about guerrilla warfare. Ultimately what would decide the outcome in my opinion is the experience of the legions sent, their general and how much brunt force and numbers the romans would field to the region. I'm not saying this with the implication that Apache were less skilled individually as warrior. But the roman war machine at full strength reduced entire regions to ash and slaughtered thousands in long drawn out warfare. |
|
|
|
Post by Spellca on Dec 11, 2010 21:10:13 GMT -5
I agree with you completely and, for the record, I wasn't comparing Apache and Aztec society or warfare - I was comparing the psychological idea of seeing horses for the first time and having to engage them in battle.
To make my point, here is one of the view remaining Aztec accounts of Spainish conquest. Slightly editted due to translation of course: "The 'stags' came forward, carrying soldiers on their backs. The soldiers wore cotton armor. They bore their leather shields and their iron spears in their hands, but their swords hung down from the necks of the stags. The animals wear many little bells. When they run, the bells make a loud clamor, ringing and reverberating. These animals snort and bellow. They sweat a great deal and the sweat pours from their bodies in streams. Foam from their muzzles drips onto the ground in fat drops, like a lather of amole (soap) When they run, they make a loud noise, as if stones were raining on the earth. Then the earth is pitted and cracked open wherever their hooves have touched it."
The Romans would have destroyed them in battle, that is no question. The main point with the calvary was that seeing these new creatures and battling them would have been terrifying for any people regardless of Aztec or Apache.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 12, 2010 15:33:56 GMT -5
Which basically comes down to the new weapon problem. Note that your translation doesnt actually state that the person doesn't understand the rider and the horse are different things. And war is scary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Feb 7, 2011 19:49:54 GMT -5
God pop culture knows nothing of warfare history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Feb 25, 2011 20:14:34 GMT -5
Pertaining to Decoy's question on information on the Celtic peoples.
The celtic peoples are a branch of the Indo-European family of peoples, unified under the celtic language tree (which includes Welsh, Briton, Gaelic, pre-roman Gaulish tongues, Iberian etc.)
Their culture under most scrutiny by experts can be traced back as far as the early Iron Age. They were a warrior people who revered various local gods/deities/spirits associated with nature. Noteworthy traits were their priestly caste: the druids and the high standing of poets whom were a distinct class of the druidic society: the bards.
As a culture, they inhabited the continental region that corresponds to France, Spain, northern Italy to the south west of what is now Germany. They also spread out into the British Isles, quickly becoming the dominant people of Britain, Ireland, Scotland etc.
Naturally speaking the celtic peoples of the continent were eventually conquered and assimilated by the Romans as did the Celts of most of the southern portion of the British Isles. While in the north of the British Isles, they were in near constant conflicts with the Germanic Vikings whom they intermingled with a lot in the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supreme Marvel on Apr 10, 2011 12:29:13 GMT -5
Who would you say were the most powerful women in history. How about a top ten? Because I keep getting different tens with maybe Queen Victoria, Cleopatra and Hatshepsut in most of them. To you knowledge, would these three be in the top ten?
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Apr 11, 2011 18:08:11 GMT -5
Who would you say were the most powerful women in history. How about a top ten? Because I keep getting different tens with maybe Queen Victoria, Cleopatra and Hatshepsut in most of them. To you knowledge, would these three be in the top ten? My guess (whom I'll elaborate further if asked) 1-Queen Victoria: Ruler of the British empire at the time it was at it's height. Origin of the name, Victorian age. Politically savy and great influence 2-Catherine the Great: Ruled the Russian Empire with an Iron fist, nuff said 3-Wu Zetian: founder of an entire chinese imperial dynasty, the Zhou 4-Hatshepsut: Pharaoh in name and power 5-Eleanor of Aquitaine: powerful influence and politically in France from 1122 to 1204, one of the most powerful woman of wester 6-Theodora: ruled the Byzantine Empire 7-Princess Pingyang: powerful general that helped her father found the Tang dynasty through sheer ass-kickery 8-Maria Theresa of Austria: ruled the Hapsbourgs for over 40 years great political power as well 9-Urraca of Leon: managed to rule alone over Leon from 10-Empress Gemmei: empress of Japan who wielded a lot of power. |
|
|
|
Post by Supreme Marvel on Apr 12, 2011 1:39:42 GMT -5
Who would you say were the most powerful women in history. How about a top ten? Because I keep getting different tens with maybe Queen Victoria, Cleopatra and Hatshepsut in most of them. To you knowledge, would these three be in the top ten? My guess (whom I'll elaborate further if asked) 1-Queen Victoria: Ruler of the British empire at the time it was at it's height. Origin of the name, Victorian age. Politically savy and great influence 2-Catherine the Great: Ruled the Russian Empire with an Iron fist, nuff said 3-Wu Zetian: founder of an entire chinese imperial dynasty, the Zhou 4-Hatshepsut: Pharaoh in name and power 5-Eleanor of Aquitaine: powerful influence and politically in France from 1122 to 1204, one of the most powerful woman of wester 6-Theodora: ruled the Byzantine Empire 7-Princess Pingyang: powerful general that helped her father found the Tang dynasty through sheer ass-kickery 8-Maria Theresa of Austria: ruled the Hapsbourgs for over 40 years great political power as well 9-Urraca of Leon: managed to rule alone over Leon from 10-Empress Gemmei: empress of Japan who wielded a lot of power. |
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Apr 12, 2011 19:18:40 GMT -5
my pleasure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supreme Marvel on May 10, 2011 13:58:58 GMT -5
Any knowledge on feminism in religion? I know it's a long shot. But I thought I'd try it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 10, 2011 15:11:47 GMT -5
Any knowledge on feminism in religion? I know it's a long shot. But I thought I'd try it. depends on what you need and mean, that's a very very broad question. Anyway you can narrow it down a little so I can have a better idea what you need? |
|
|
|
Post by Supreme Marvel on May 10, 2011 15:48:42 GMT -5
Well I've got this question for my essay.
"Consider the quotation(s) above in discussion of one of the plays performance texts you have studied on the unit (The Skriker) and at least one other play (Hedda Gabler) or performance text found through independent research. You should, in your answer, refer to critical/theoretical framework you have encountered, and examine the extent to which the plays can be considered “feminist” texts (through analysis of their subversion of language, form, content, gender representation etc.)"
And I drew up a structure of what I want to talk about. And religion popped into it. So anything significant that comes to mind. Maybe the link between them? Or why they do or don't work together? I thought I'd ask here few before I start that section. That help at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 11, 2011 18:17:10 GMT -5
I'm truthfully a little stumped on how to help you here as I am not familiar with neither The Shriker or Hedda Gabler, I'd rather not talk out of my hat.
I can talk about women in religion in general but I don't think that's what you need.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supreme Marvel on May 11, 2011 18:21:33 GMT -5
Don't worry about it. I finished it this morning.  No more work for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 11, 2011 18:22:02 GMT -5
Don't worry about it. I finished it this morning. No more work for a while. I really wish I could have helped you  |
|
|
|
Post by Supreme Marvel on May 11, 2011 18:31:12 GMT -5
It's fine. Hated the essay from the minute I started it. Deadline is was 4 hours ago to hand in 9pm, and now it's 00:30. And people are still doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 11, 2011 18:32:15 GMT -5
I see, well at least you were able to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Khaos King on May 25, 2011 18:27:37 GMT -5
I'll bite and see what you know. >_>
you used the word Aztec in your myth thread which i have issues with on a cultural level.
my question to you is was there ever actually a tribe or group of people prior to modern time who called themselves Aztec?
what does the World Aztec mean and when was it 1st used?
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 25, 2011 21:11:54 GMT -5
I'll bite and see what you know. >_> Please do not take my words as a challenge or any disrespect. I tend to use common usage terms unless specifically asked to get technical. my question to you is was there ever actually a tribe or group of people prior to modern time who called themselves Aztec? yes and no, it depends on what you call a tribe or even a group. Aztec is the blanket modern/bastardized term used to refer to the nahualt speaking people of Mesoamerica that would form and compose the Aztec empire around Tenochtitlan following the triple alliance in the 13th century with Tenochtitlan. However the Aztec empire was formed by three tribes joining forces to form their city-state based empire: -The Aztecalt: people of Aztlan as it translates to, also known as Mexica with their center at Tenochtitlan -The Alcolhuas of Texcoco - Tepanecs of Tlalocopan in this context, aztec refers to the people of nahualt language living under this empire, even if originally there were several tribes. Since the Aztec empire was a city state empire with multiple rulers at the same time but also a cosmopolitan and political center. Culture and tribes melded, lines somewhat disappeared. In this context, Aztec is a subjective term, but an acceptable one to speak in generalities. |
|
No more work for a while. 
