Recent comments in /f/history
[deleted] t1_j19g3io wrote
Horror_in_Vacuum OP t1_j19ffk2 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in How did the Romans manage to arm most of their soldiers with swords? by Horror_in_Vacuum
Why is it not a fact?
[deleted] t1_j19eqzc wrote
[deleted] t1_j19e3e2 wrote
impulsekash t1_j19d3p6 wrote
How does modern armies equip their soldiers with guns? They have an entire industry built around supply their armies.
[deleted] t1_j19d3ch wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in How did the Romans manage to arm most of their soldiers with swords? by Horror_in_Vacuum
[removed]
RagingLeonard t1_j19cmtj wrote
It costs around $17,400 to equip an average US Army infantryman. Empire is expensive.
Horror_in_Vacuum OP t1_j19c49i wrote
Reply to comment by Welshhoppo in How did the Romans manage to arm most of their soldiers with swords? by Horror_in_Vacuum
Interesting, thanks for the answer.
[deleted] t1_j19c23k wrote
Reply to comment by TheCryptokenKeeper in How did the Romans manage to arm most of their soldiers with swords? by Horror_in_Vacuum
[removed]
TheCryptokenKeeper t1_j19bun0 wrote
Why do you think the Roman Empire kept expanding? Resources. The empire was a machine so they had the manpower and money to buy and/ or make weapons
[deleted] t1_j19btmk wrote
[removed]
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.
[deleted] t1_j19blud wrote
I_am_BrokenCog t1_j19bdpc wrote
Reply to comment by SomeDEGuy in Discovery of 1,000 previously unknown Maya settlements challenges the old notion of sparse early human occupation in northern Guatemala (ca. 1000 B.C.–A.D. 150) by marketrent
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.
[deleted] t1_j19bd4e wrote
[deleted]
reddogg81 t1_j19bb40 wrote
Romans mined areas they occupied and exploited local resources aswell as having a vast trading network
dittybopper_05H t1_j198kku wrote
Reply to comment by ArkyBeagle in Why didn't the US adopt the STG-44 after WW2? by TurboTortois3
From what I hear the M-4 is going to still be issued to non-infantry troops, while the actual trigger pullers are going to get the XM5.
Wundei t1_j1986ml wrote
Reply to Discovery of 1,000 previously unknown Maya settlements challenges the old notion of sparse early human occupation in northern Guatemala (ca. 1000 B.C.–A.D. 150) by marketrent
It’s worth noting that this is just surface mapping. Who knows what is in the ground underneath these structures. If there was this much unknown development hiding, who knows how long these cultures actually lived in the area for.
AlaskanSamsquanch t1_j197l88 wrote
Reply to Discovery of 1,000 previously unknown Maya settlements challenges the old notion of sparse early human occupation in northern Guatemala (ca. 1000 B.C.–A.D. 150) by marketrent
I thought we knew this? Either way it’s an awesome discovery.
Tudhal t1_j195xxg wrote
Reply to comment by Anonynja in Discovery of 1,000 previously unknown Maya settlements challenges the old notion of sparse early human occupation in northern Guatemala (ca. 1000 B.C.–A.D. 150) by marketrent
>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.
ArkyBeagle t1_j1953zj wrote
Reply to comment by dittybopper_05H in Why didn't the US adopt the STG-44 after WW2? by TurboTortois3
> 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.
FoolishConsistency17 t1_j194psx wrote
Reply to comment by Anonynja in Discovery of 1,000 previously unknown Maya settlements challenges the old notion of sparse early human occupation in northern Guatemala (ca. 1000 B.C.–A.D. 150) by marketrent
The 'sparsely populated America' has very deep roots.
ImOnlyHereCauseGME t1_j19252d wrote
Reply to comment by Rocketgirl8097 in Bookclub Wednesday! by AutoModerator
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!
Jarlentium t1_j19gida wrote
Reply to comment by Welshhoppo in How did the Romans manage to arm most of their soldiers with swords? by Horror_in_Vacuum
Until the Catholic Church took their place