What is your favorite part of history

that depends on the writer. What do you mean by history work?

 

Other than just reading the wikipedia article, the only other place I recognize the Holy-Roman-Empire-Era Baden from is Europa Universalis, as one of the states in the middle of Europe. Some cool looking heraldry pics out there though.

You working on a warhammer project or something for real life?

 

Are we speaking of the Napoleonic baden-wurttemberg state? Or something earlier?

 

Really neat, but I feel your pain! It doesn't help searching for sources if you don't read the language

On a quick search, I wasn't able to find much. I am betting that is because most of the actual sources from the time period are (shocking) in German! I wonder if searching for information on the Holy Roman Empire during that period might help instead? You may only find snippets on some of the smaller states, but it is a starting point.

 

History works as in writing works of literature that are about history. (my brain be fried)

 

Find a period you like, that is first

 

Incorrect. There were many wars on American soil, some of which were:
Wars between the Native Americans and the colonists early in the 16th and 17th Centuries
American War of Independence (which they only won because the French helped, and they did so only to beat us British)
American Civil War
Indian Wars (which showed how brutal the Americans could be)
War of 1812 (where they tried to invade Canada but were soundly beaten by the combined forces of Britain, Canada and the Native Americans)

And also the Native American tribes spoke all sorts of different languages other than English.

 

You’re not insulting me - I’m British, not American, as you probably know. I’m just stating the facts - I’m not trying to say that anything about the wars I’ve mentioned are any more devastating than medieval wars. You just said there were ‘hardly any wars on American soil’ and I am just stating otherwise. The War of 1812 was highly important in Canada’s history as well as that of the Native Americans, even if it seems small in comparison to many of the other wars that were fought, and if it had been lost by the alliance it would have destroyed Canada’s own separate culture as it would have become part of the USA and they would now be ruled by Emperor Palpatine.

Also I agree that the so-called ‘Indian Wars’ were largely a genocide, I was just using a general term for it - I certainly never meant that there was any glory in it - far from it. Certainly the ‘Battle’ of Wounded Knee was nothing more than a cowardly massacre carried out by American barbarians. I primarily called it a ‘war’ because the Native Americans did have some victories, most notably Little Bighorn but also most instances of ambush upon the US army carried out by the natives were a Native American victory. In fact the US army is probably one of the worst armies when it comes to stealth fighting, certainly in the modern era. I love the unique culture of the Native Americans and whenever I’ve played with my miniature cowboys and Indians the Native Americans always won (because when you play with your soldiers you decide who wins) - you won’t find very many bigger Native American supporters than me.

 

Honestly, @Aginor has a point. European conflicts have a certain scale to them. Elayu, for example.

 

Good point, the conquests of Mexico were truly devastating, especially when you include the fallout that occured in the wake of the Spanish invasions (disease) that wiped out upwards of 1/2 or 2/3 of the New World population within a mere few centuries .

Spoiler: tangent: alien contact

The Spanish conquests of Mexico and the New World are one of the biggest arguements against humankind making alien contact.

We might get lucky if aliens land on Earth, and things go War of the Worlds style and they get wiped out thanks to our superior earthling microbes.

Or what is more likely is that the aliens will introduce a single, innocuous and harmless alien microbe into our planet, and wipe out our ecosystem because either human immunity doesn't exist, or even more deadly, no immunity exists in our plants

Another side note, lets not forget the scale of the conflicts in Europe tend to be on an order of magnitude less than the devastation caused by numerous wars in the Far East, specifically China.

An Lushan Rebellion (Tang Dynasty, Chinese Caesar rebels against the Emperor)
War of the Three Kingdoms
Mongol Conquests of China (founds Yuan Dynasty) and the Mongol Conquests of Asia in general (also partially responsible for the Black Death)
Manchu Conquests of China (founds Qing Dynasty)
Boxer Rebellion (Chinese revolt against European colonialism backed by Qing)
Chinese Revolts against Qing Dynasty --> Warlords Period --> War with Japan/WWII -->Chinese Civil War

 

Now then @pendrake, just what do you disagree with about what I wrote in the Warhammer Wild West thread about the Celts and their hillforts?

 

Oh. Wow. There is already a thread for such things.

***wanders off to figure out how to quote out of one thread to another***

 

I simply quoted your post in the Wild West thread and moved to the history thread - I’ve found out that the multi-quote stores all the posts you quote between threads. Ah, the joys of this forum...

 

All this quoted material is from the brainstorming thread. I will sift through it paragraph by paragraph to Catalog the bits where @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl causes me to think, “Errrrr, what? wait, No...”

I’ll try to ignore most Warhammer universe aspects.

What I think I know about Warhammer-Albion is from the Albion campaign from the 5th or 6th edition of Warhammer when White Dwarf magazine was in the range of issues 259-268.



Settlers From Albion

I contend that the human population of Warhammer-Albion (as written by GW) was primarily a bunch of primitives that made the Picts look clever and educated.

There were Giants, there were a tiny number of spellcasters (Truthsayers or Emissaries) and a bunch of wretched, cave dwelling mooks.

We agreed ^ that kindly Elves and Stone circles are a simpler explanation.

The Vikings were ousted because they were massively outnumbered. Hill Forts need a huge construction force and numerous defenders. It was all down to numbers. I would call that partial agreement.

Viking settlements in the new world were too small to even try a Hill Fort and they were in places where there was little timber for palisades. So I’m disagreeing about the relevance of Hill Forts.

That paragraph is all speculation. Neither of us was alive then, so we don’t really how Hill Forts worked.

They were the earthwork Forts of their day... ...rather than Castles. Castles are smaller.

Or the elaborate gates and multi-layered ramparts had other purposes.

Like controlling the movement of people and livestock on market days maybe.

If the Celts had no experience with sieges why did they fortify? The whole point of building a fortification is to leave your opponent with no other option but to besiege you. If they had Forts and they warred with each other they had sieges.

The Romans were simply better at assaulting fortifications.

NB: ...siege means surround and isolate an enemy who is Forted up. Assault is the word for smash into the enemy fort.

Siege Warfare entails starving out the Foe or vanquishing an Invader by waiting them out. The Romans didn’t have time for that.

I don’t think having Hill Forts means automatic superiority for those who are forted up. Without enough numbers to defend its perimeter it is useless.

Disagree. The Vikings did build places fortified with earthen ramparts. There is an example in Denmark.

 

There are seven [known] examples [mostly] in Denmark.

 

1700-2018