Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 14th, 2012, 03:11 AM   #11
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Karachi
Posts: 1,015

Quote:
Originally Posted by bartieboy View Post
No matter by which general a tank is being led, a Tiger II is always more powerful than a Renault FT.
Men are not machines .
Lazyman is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 14th, 2012, 03:12 AM   #12
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Karachi
Posts: 1,015

Quote:
Originally Posted by bartieboy View Post
No matter by which general a tank is being led, a Tiger II is always more powerful than a Renault FT.
Men are not machines .
Lazyman is offline  
Old July 14th, 2012, 03:13 AM   #13
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Karachi
Posts: 1,015

Quote:
Originally Posted by bartieboy View Post
No matter by which general a tank is being led, a Tiger II is always more powerful than a Renault FT.
Men are not machines .

Ehem, sorry guys , multiple post, delete please .
Lazyman is offline  
Old July 14th, 2012, 03:18 AM   #14
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 877

Quote:
Originally Posted by lokariototal View Post
Which weapon was considered the most "destructive" and/or feared in the Middle Ages? Or at least, what was the best/most efficient weapon of that era?
the stirrup and/or the horse shoe.



Quote:
Ehem, sorry guys , multiple post, delete please .
edit: guy above you can delete the posts your self.
amazedkat is offline  
Old July 14th, 2012, 03:20 AM   #15

Darth Roach's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
From: Jelgava, Latvia
Posts: 1,325

Quote:
Originally Posted by lokariototal View Post
Which weapon was considered the most "destructive" and/or feared in the Middle Ages? Or at least, what was the best/most efficient weapon of that era?
There was no such weapon. It's common among popular history publications to attribute military success to weaponry, but it's BS. There were no unbeatable weapons, and armies weren't uniformly outfitted to begin with - most men provided their own gear.

@anyone mentioning longbows: No. No, no, no, no. Longbows could be neutralized by a simple padded jack, ffs! They weren't APDS. They don't pierce armor except for at the shortest of ranges, and even then it's not guaranteed.

Quote:
No matter by which general a tank is being led, a Tiger II is always more powerful than a Renault FT.
Because you can attribute tangible characteristics to tanks. Cavalry doesn't win because they have thicker armor than the opposing force, or because their lance has a higher penetration capability. Unlike your example, when a renault FT cannot engage the Tiger, because it has no weapon to use against it, medieval combat was human vs human, which means that it was ALWAYS possible to kill the enemy. Usually the side with the largest local concentration of numbers won.
Darth Roach is offline  
Old July 14th, 2012, 09:24 AM   #16

hisstoryin's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 324

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Roach View Post
There was no such weapon. It's common among popular history publications to attribute military success to weaponry, but it's BS. There were no unbeatable weapons, and armies weren't uniformly outfitted to begin with - most men provided their own gear.

@anyone mentioning longbows: No. No, no, no, no. Longbows could be neutralized by a simple padded jack, ffs! They weren't APDS. They don't pierce armor except for at the shortest of ranges, and even then it's not guaranteed.



Because you can attribute tangible characteristics to tanks. Cavalry doesn't win because they have thicker armor than the opposing force, or because their lance has a higher penetration capability. Unlike your example, when a renault FT cannot engage the Tiger, because it has no weapon to use against it, medieval combat was human vs human, which means that it was ALWAYS possible to kill the enemy. Usually the side with the largest local concentration of numbers won.
I agree with most of this. Except you can't attribute any war to any one thing. All war is a combination of tangible and intangible elements, we can categorize them into MEANS, which is theoretically measurable, and WILL. These are highly susceptible to almost any action from elements within the population, government, or military. War aims, home fronts, commanders, luck, probability, etc etc etc; all these things way in heavily to any war at almost any time. War is the accumulation of countless variables. SO it is very true that war is a human interaction and technology is just a constant external factor.

Biological warfare was extremely effective. Probably the best answer. Not much to do with technology though.

Last edited by hisstoryin; July 14th, 2012 at 10:03 AM.
hisstoryin is offline  
Old July 14th, 2012, 12:27 PM   #17

jehosafats's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,846
Blog Entries: 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
Thinking to military weapons with a deep impact on the enemy,

what about Greek fire? It had a terrible effect, physically and psychologically on the opponents.
I figured this would be the more popular answer.
jehosafats is offline  
Old July 14th, 2012, 01:03 PM   #18

okamido's Avatar
knows what the bee knows
 
Joined: Jun 2009
From: land of Califia
Posts: 27,701
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
I tend to agree. Overall during sieges, to throw rats, mouses [often dead] beyond the walls was a very effective way to persuade the besieged to surrender ...

We could say that they used "biological mass destruction weapons".
Didn't the Mongols do something like this in one of their sieges? Plague broke out in there camp, and they flung their own dead over the city wall to hamper the defense?
okamido is offline  
Old July 14th, 2012, 01:05 PM   #19

bartieboy's Avatar
.
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: The Netherlands
Posts: 6,526
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Roach View Post
Because you can attribute tangible characteristics to tanks. Cavalry doesn't win because they have thicker armor than the opposing force, or because their lance has a higher penetration capability. Unlike your example, when a renault FT cannot engage the Tiger, because it has no weapon to use against it, medieval combat was human vs human, which means that it was ALWAYS possible to kill the enemy. Usually the side with the largest local concentration of numbers won.
We are talking about the most powerful, so that is one on one.
My comparison of the Tiger II vs the Renault FT is not so strange, just imagine a fully armoured knight on a fully armoured horse fighting against a farmer with a pitchfork.
How much chance does the farmer have?
about just as much as a Renault FT against a Tiger II
bartieboy is offline  
Old July 14th, 2012, 05:47 PM   #20

Fire_Raven's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Oregon
Posts: 1,819

Quote:
Originally Posted by okamido View Post
Didn't the Mongols do something like this in one of their sieges? Plague broke out in there camp, and they flung their own dead over the city wall to hamper the defense?
Supposedly during the Siege of Kaffa and survivors fleeing the city by sea transported it to Western Europe beginning the Black Death (or so the story goes)
Fire_Raven is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
ages, bomb, middle, nuclear


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Glorious Middle Ages Brisieis General History 47 March 31st, 2012 02:49 PM
The Middle Ages in Colour Brisieis European History 1 November 11th, 2011 10:38 AM
Last B53 Nuclear Bomb to be Dismantled Today tjadams American History 8 October 26th, 2011 09:40 AM
Instroduction of Middle Ages Rommel History Help 1 October 20th, 2011 06:55 AM
Middle Ages End Speed37 Medieval and Byzantine History 73 July 22nd, 2009 12:53 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.