Recent comments in /f/history

Welshhoppo t1_j19bshz wrote

So firstly. Roman swords were very short, at least in the republican era. Your average sword was only about 2 foot long and weighed about a pound. Which isn't really a large amount of metal.

Secondly, the Roman army was a massive financial juggernaut that was basically the most expensive part of the Roman government. They could afford to spend the money on swords. In the late empire, the Romans had a series of military factories in frontier provinces dedicated to producing Roman weaponry.

I can't speak for Medieval warfare, but I imagine the amount of money they were able to spend was a lot less than the Romans could.

131

I_am_BrokenCog t1_j19bdpc wrote

well, it has been the consensus among ethnologists, historians and sociologists that the America's population of North, Central and South, were "only a few millions of people" when Columbus and de Leon explored the hemisphere.

Since the 70s or 80s this has been challenged, although not without remaining doubt, that the population was actually in the hundreds of millions.

So, yes, "old notion" is perfectly correct. Sometimes truth is both sensationalist click bait and factual reporting.

16

Tudhal t1_j195xxg wrote

>many tens of millions of people lived in the so-called Americas before colonization and genocide.

This article is about the region 2000 years before Columbus.

There weren’t many places on the planet in 1000 BC to 100 AD with tens of millions of people.

Even Rome was scarcely more than a village in 500 BC.

11

ArkyBeagle t1_j1953zj wrote

> That's actually the heaviest infantry rifle ever adopted by the US military.

True.

> I'm willing to bet that cost considerations are going to ensure that the reduced version gets used in combat.

Huh. What I've read says the gain of function looked for was piercing body armor. So maybe you're right.

> but they shouldn't be significantly heavier than an M-1 Garand or an M-14.

Most likely. I imagine the M16 will still be in use.

1

ImOnlyHereCauseGME t1_j19252d wrote

I have not read it but per Wikipedia: “Ten Days That Shook the World (1919) is a book by the American journalist and socialist John Reed. Here, Reed presented a firsthand account of the 1917 Russian October Revolution. Reed followed many of the most prominent Bolsheviks closely during his time in Russia.”

Sounds very interesting. I always find first hand accounts fascinating as they give a perspective that is untainted (for better or worse) by the following historical examination and shows what people were thinking at the time. Thank for the recommendation!

4