Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ok, perhaps you are correct. However, how would you determine that going through the intestinal cavity of a buffalo would mean that one could place an arrow through armor? I think that by the late Middle Ages the armor was more complex and reliable than mere chain mail. And wouldn't this have been the whole point of armor? To defend against longbow attacks?
You live in Oregon, right? You should investigate the attacks. There has to be something in the local paper archives detailing them. I doubt that the Japanese intended on attacking Oregon specifically, but that was probably the route that the jet stream naturally flew across going east from Japan.
How about Archimedes? He supplied any number of technological marvels for the Roman military, only to be killed by an over-zealous Roman soldier one day. He was one of the greatest engineers of the ancient world.
It was easier to use than the longbow, and unlike its cousin, it could pierce armor.Your information is wrong. It was the longbow that could pierce armor.
Hello Carmy. I heard about the piercing capability of the crossbow on the show I watched which I mentioned above. I just did some reading and found the following evidence to support my claim that the crossbow had superior penetrating power than the longbow. This is from Wikipedia:
The use of these devices allowed soldiers to use and fire weapons with a draw force far in excess of what they could have handled with a bow. In the later years of the crossbow it had enough kinetic energy to penetrate any chainmail and most plate armor hit squarely: some reached a draw force of nearly 350 lbf (1600 N), compared to the 60-180lbf (300-900 N) draw force for a longbow.
If you think about it, it seems that a mechanical device would naturally be able to create more force than the non-mechanical longbow. While the entry I cited suggests this might not always have been the case with the crossbow early on, I think that the longbow's popularity would have been due to the ability to mass produce it at a lower price than the xbow, and the fact that the xbow had moving parts meant that it would have been less reliable on the battlefield.
But Donnie, the cultural clash with Christian Europe was there from the beginning. In fact, the break in Christianity in the 16th Century should have given the Ottomans an advantage since there would no longer be such a unified effort against them. It seems the beginning of the downfall came during the late-16th Century after the Battle of Lepanto in 1574 (I think the show glossed over this, though). I'm wondering if a lack of technological processes in military and economic spheres spelled doom for the empire.
I found this link which helps to give a better background on the issue.? It's a question as to whether the FISA statute or Article II (which defines Executive powers) is of pre-eminance.? I would always think that Article II would be, but the blog suggests that it isn't so clear cut.
Flying shouldn't deter you. I believe you can take a cruise (or a non-cruise boat trip) to Europe and you can see a lot of good sites. I took a boat ride from the port at Bari, Italy to Greece some years ago and it gave me an interesting perspective. I was able to witness the “rosy-fingered dawn” around the Greek Isles that Homer speaks of. My friends and I were also able to leave a number of American pennies and Italian Lira on the bottom of the Mediterranean during the course of a game we played in transit.
I think you'd really have to have sovereignty over foreign lands – perhaps through diplomatic means or otherwise – within a framework of a peaceful kingdom. Merely occupying a foreign land won't do it. You have to have control over it, lead it, make it one of your own states, so to speak.
I think there is something to be said about the attitude toward Jews in general in Europe. In my understanding, the Jews used the advantage of the banking system to make their way in life. As they controlled money, they gained some power even though their numbers were not large. At times I'm sure that this created envy among Christians and others who despised the Jews for their position of control and money. In fact, I recall a reference to a “cheating Jew” moneychanger in Voltaire's Candide; I thought that this probably reflected a stereotype, if not a general perception at least in early/mid-1700s.As far as Hitler, it appears that he identified the Jews with the Communists, and he had a great hatred for the Communists:
Hitler saw socialism as part of a Jewish conspiracy. Many of the socialist leaders in Germany, including Kurt Eisner, Rosa Luxemburg, Ernst Toller and Eugen Levine were Jews. So also were many of the leaders of the October Revolution in Russia. This included Leon Trotsky, Gregory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Dimitri Bogrov, Karl Radek, Yakov Sverdlov, Maxim Litvinov, Adolf Joffe, and Moisei Uritsky. It had not escaped Hitler's notice that Karl Marx, the prophet of socialism, had also been a Jew.
I took that from the Spartacus UK entry for Hitler, which I have found to be the best detailed, easy to read and interesting explanation of where Hitler was coming from and how he gained power. Perhaps you can find more ideas there.
I was rather surprised that you did not mention Constantiople (Istabal). A magnificient city during the Byzantine era, made even more beautiful by the Ottomans.
Perhaps made more beautiful, though the two days of plunder after the sacking of the city in the 15th Century probably destroyed some things. However, I agree - Constantinople/Byzantium must have been a magnificent city during its hey day.
On second thought I should clarify what I wrote, because I realized that the U.S. is simply too young to compare its “effect” as a civilization. So purely on a level of world influence (power, economic might, etc.) my question should be resubmitted. In this regard, perhaps the U.S. is not alone. The Ottoman Empire (referred to in another post) might be comparable, though less appropriate than the U.S. Perhaps Napoleon's France could have been had he not decided to carry his battles into Russia. England at some point – perhaps early 19th Century or early in the 18th Century.
Well from past case law I think that “unreasonable” generally entails an absence of exigent circumstances. That is, an “invasion of privacy” is more reasonable when there is an emergency on the line, so the government has more authority to act without a warrant in such cases. I think in the case of the wire tapping. it may come down to whether there is sufficient exigency to bypass the need for a judge to issue the warrant to conduct the tap. Normally a judge would be needed to issue a warrant so that a detached, neutral magistrate can decide, based on the facts, whether such a warrant is justified. This is normally good because you don't want the government unilaterally listening in to your phone calls or issuing themselves search warrants for your house! On the other hand, you don't want a cop to need to get a search warrant if an armed and dangerous criminal is fleeing from police and takes refuge in your house. So there's a balancing act to be played.
I know that Donnie went away to Florida for a few days and I don't think he has regular access to a computer. As far as others…I think people just pop in from time to time.
I caught part of this program last night on repeat and hearing about these engineering feats astounds me still. Make me want to go back in time to see the glory that was Rome. It probably would have been best to go back in post-Caracalla times since you'd be able to enjoy the engineering marvels made during that era and of eras past.
