Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[Kubra]

Couldn't afford? Axes and spears are not terribly expensive, a bow only slightly more so. And in any case, as simply a numbers game, between an equal number of heavy cavalry, the side with infantry, even poor infantry, have an advantage.

None of those weapons were effective (unless you mean longbow) against armored, mounted knights, who were not just "heavy cavalry", they were covered in steel armor, and their horses often were as well. No matter your numbers, untrained rabble infantry is going get cut to shreds against against a charge by highly disciplined, organized, trained knights; they would probably break and scatter within minutes of contact.

they do not need to be effective. It is enough that a charging horse cannot cross a body of men in close formation if it has sufficient depth, and any losses in infantry are made for by the loss of momentum for those heavy cavalry.

>they were covered in steel armor, and their horses often were as well
lol so just heavy cavalry

[The Parkus Empire]

I was actually referencing private property when I said territory.

Which is even less grounded in the natural world, since humans are the only organisms to recognize objects as being 'property'. And certainly not even universally among humans.

Individualism is a human philosophy, don't conflate it with egoism or instinct. And no, animals do not have rule of law, so breakdowns are much more common; does not mean hierarchy does not exist, just that it is not civilized.

It isn't a breakdown though. Fracturing of groups and contests are linear dominance systems working as intended. Dispersal of males allows for new territories to be colonized by males and their harems of females, and contests ensure that only the 'fittest' males in a given area are given reproductive priority. It is individualistic because these systems are maintained and built through the actions of individual organisms. It is atomistic because there is no universal social order and hierarchy can only be enforced on those who the single dominant organism can exert his will over. It is voluntary because neither the subordinate males nor the dominant males have anything to gain by forcing males or females to stay within their grasp, and they themselves may need to disperse themselves one day if they are deposed from their harem.

Animal territory is a sort of property.

"working as intended"
What

[The Parkus Empire]

None of those weapons were effective (unless you mean longbow) against armored, mounted knights, who were not just "heavy cavalry", they were covered in steel armor, and their horses often were as well. No matter your numbers, untrained rabble infantry is going get cut to shreds against against a charge by highly disciplined, organized, trained knights; they would probably break and scatter within minutes of contact.

they do not need to be effective. It is enough that a charging horse cannot cross a body of men in close formation if it has sufficient depth, and any losses in infantry are made for by the loss of momentum for those heavy cavalry.

>they were covered in steel armor, and their horses often were as well
lol so just heavy cavalry

Moving and fighting in close formatation would not happen with untrained serfs.

[The Parkus Empire]

You're talking mostly about late middle ages and not at all about serfs.

No he isn't.
The late medieval period was dominated by mercenaries and men at arms.

Which were required to conduct prolonged seiges, as knights generally served only three months a year.

[Tekeristan]

they do not need to be effective. It is enough that a charging horse cannot cross a body of men in close formation if it has sufficient depth, and any losses in infantry are made for by the loss of momentum for those heavy cavalry.

>they were covered in steel armor, and their horses often were as well
lol so just heavy cavalry

Moving and fighting in close formatation would not happen with untrained serfs.

That's how they fought for a long time.
It's not exactly mind-bending to walk in a formation. Literally just a few minutes explaining and a drill or two.

The problem was they just broke and ran when heavy calv were barreling down at them.
When they didn't break and run though.. Well.. Pretty much the opposite.

[Kubra]

they do not need to be effective. It is enough that a charging horse cannot cross a body of men in close formation if it has sufficient depth, and any losses in infantry are made for by the loss of momentum for those heavy cavalry.

>they were covered in steel armor, and their horses often were as well
lol so just heavy cavalry

Moving and fighting in close formatation would not happen with untrained serfs.

>moving
if one's opponent is heavy cavalry and one is infantry, there's not really any moving, whether one is a feudal levy or later heavily drilled line infantry in a square formation.
And in any case, why would it not also be the case with the untrained yeoman or untrained freeman, or anyone else standing to fight as part of their feudal obligation that was not a lord or son of a lord?

[Genivaria]

No he isn't.
The late medieval period was dominated by mercenaries and men at arms.

Which were required to conduct prolonged seiges, as knights generally served only three months a year.

Where do you get your alternative facts exactly?
You've still not provided any evidence btw that peasant levies didn't fight.

[Genivaria]

Moving and fighting in close formatation would not happen with untrained serfs.

That's how they fought for a long time.
It's not exactly mind-bending to walk in a formation. Literally just a few minutes explaining and a drill or two.

The problem was they just broke and ran when heavy calv were barreling down at them.
When they didn't break and run though.. Well.. Pretty much the opposite.

"My farming scythe isn't doing shit against that knight's armor half our group is already dead, fuck this I'm out of here!"

[The Widening Gyre]

Animal territory is a sort of property.

Not really. Territories in animals are fluid. Many animals have home ranges, for example, that represent the total area they utilize for food, resources and the like, but don't actually defend it or attempt to enforce their exclusive use. The only parts of their home range that they might defend would be their nesting site or a small area around it, for example. This is common among animals from cougars to hyenas to colonial waterbirds to fish. Even then their actual territorial space is impermanent. Nest sites are abandoned at the end of breeding season and new ones are chosen, while the old ones are not protected from newcomers. Really, competitive pressures select against having large or completely exclusive territories. It takes far far more energy to constantly patrol for newcomers than would be gained in ensuring that the resources of a home range are utilized only by the patroler.

"working as intended"
What

Turn of phrase. Merely meant to point out that fragmentation and contests are not a dysfunction.

[The Parkus Empire]

Moving and fighting in close formatation would not happen with untrained serfs.

>moving
if one's opponent is heavy cavalry and one is infantry, there's not really any moving, whether one is a feudal levy or later heavily drilled line infantry in a square formation.
And in any case, why would it not also be the case with the untrained yeoman or untrained freeman, or anyone else standing to fight as part of their feudal obligation that was not a lord or son of a lord?

Yeoman tended to use bows, I think.

[The Parkus Empire]

Which were required to conduct prolonged seiges, as knights generally served only three months a year.

Where do you get your alternative facts exactly?
You've still not provided any evidence btw that peasant levies didn't fight.

Altetnative to what? Whig memes? I already told you.

By "peasant" do you mean serfs, or free landholders?

[Tekeristan]

That's how they fought for a long time.
It's not exactly mind-bending to walk in a formation. Literally just a few minutes explaining and a drill or two.

The problem was they just broke and ran when heavy calv were barreling down at them.
When they didn't break and run though.. Well.. Pretty much the opposite.

"My farming scythe isn't doing shit against that knight's armor half our group is already dead, fuck this I'm out of here!"

Spears were very common, and easy to make. :l
Wars weren't such a surprise that they gave people farming tools.

Hell, swords were often passed down generation to generation.

[Genivaria]

Where do you get your alternative facts exactly?
You've still not provided any evidence btw that peasant levies didn't fight.

Altetnative to what? Whig memes? I already told you.

By "peasant" do you mean serfs, or free landholders?

I don't know what you think you're talking about when you keep using the word 'whig' and calling something a 'meme' is not an argument and makes you look silly.

[Genivaria]

"My farming scythe isn't doing shit against that knight's armor half our group is already dead, fuck this I'm out of here!"

Spears were very common, and easy to make. :l
Wars weren't such a surprise that they gave people farming tools.

Hell, swords were often passed down generation to generation.

Peasant levies often went into battle carrying whatever they could bring with them.
Rarely were they given even a shield, but yes spears were extremely common.
A peasant owning a sword was...not common.

[The Parkus Empire]

Animal territory is a sort of property.

Not really. Territories in animals are fluid. Many animals have home ranges, for example, that represent the total area they utilize for food, resources and the like, but don't actually defend it or attempt to enforce their exclusive use. The only parts of their home range that they might defend would be their nesting site or a small area around it, for example. This is common among animals from cougars to hyenas to colonial waterbirds to fish. Even then their actual territorial space is impermanent. Nest sites are abandoned at the end of breeding season and new ones are chosen, while the old ones are not protected from newcomers. Really, competitive pressures select against having large or completely exclusive territories. It takes far far more energy to constantly patrol for newcomers than would be gained in ensuring that the resources of a home range are utilized only by the patroler.

"working as intended"
What

Turn of phrase. Merely meant to point out that fragmentation and contests are not a dysfunction.

Showing territory is very unstable without agriculture hardly means animals do not have understanding of it as theirs and not yours, which is why they mark it.

Fragmentation is not a dysfunction because they do not have agriculture.

[Tekeristan]

Spears were very common, and easy to make. :l
Wars weren't such a surprise that they gave people farming tools.

Hell, swords were often passed down generation to generation.

Peasant levies often went into battle carrying whatever they could bring with them.
Rarely were they given even a shield, but yes spears were extremely common.
A peasant owning a sword was...not common.

Mhm, I can believe it. Arming and training the peasants was generally a bad idea because they just keep rebelling for some reason!

[Bakery Hill]

That is good, I'm of the opinion that real pacifism is at times objectively fascist, just like Orwell said.

Pacifism is objectively an ideology centered around regenerative violence and militarism. Hmmm....

"objectively pro-fascist"

my mistake

[Genivaria]

Peasant levies often went into battle carrying whatever they could bring with them.
Rarely were they given even a shield, but yes spears were extremely common.
A peasant owning a sword was...not common.

Mhm, I can believe it. Arming and training the peasants was generally a bad idea because they just keep rebelling for some reason!

Pretty much yeah, only later did urban populations start investing into any kind of militia.
Hell Japan had the same mentality during the feudal era.
They had a thing called 'sword hunts'Irrc.

[Tekeristan]

Mhm, I can believe it. Arming and training the peasants was generally a bad idea because they just keep rebelling for some reason!

Pretty much yeah, only later did urban populations start investing into any kind of militia.

Something something Divine Right of Kings,
Something something let them eat cake..

Napoleon "I spend 30,000 lives a month you cannot stop me" did it right. Until he didn't.
It was the idea if a Peoples/Nations army, wasn't it?

[The Parkus Empire]

Altetnative to what? Whig memes? I already told you.

By "peasant" do you mean serfs, or free landholders?

I don't know what you think you're talking about when you keep using the word 'whig' and calling something a 'meme' is not an argument and makes you look silly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history

"Whig" is sometimes used as a pejorative for opposite of someone who sees the past through sentimentalist eyes as some utopia; that is, someone who simplifies the past as pure evil and vile and hell in every way.

[Tekeristan]

I'm glad I live now and not back when.

[Kubra]

Mhm, I can believe it. Arming and training the peasants was generally a bad idea because they just keep rebelling for some reason!

Pretty much yeah, only later did urban populations start investing into any kind of militia.
Hell Japan had the same mentality during the feudal era.
They had a thing called 'sword hunts'Irrc.

the sword hunts (as well as other policies, like making ashigaru a fixed class part of the samurai and making samurai a hereditary rather than appointed position) were part of a solidifying of the feudal state of affairs, rather than a business-as-usual policy. The sengoku jidai left everyone and their second born sons with some degree of military experience, not a terribly good state of affairs for a ruler looking to keep tabs on his vassals.
The idea of using peasant levies in battle is more begrudging necessity, because losing sux and might result in having to disembowl oneself and so one has to make compromises to not lose.

[Kubra]

>moving
if one's opponent is heavy cavalry and one is infantry, there's not really any moving, whether one is a feudal levy or later heavily drilled line infantry in a square formation.
And in any case, why would it not also be the case with the untrained yeoman or untrained freeman, or anyone else standing to fight as part of their feudal obligation that was not a lord or son of a lord?

Yeoman tended to use bows, I think.

He tended to use a bow for hunting. It's a very different skill than using a bow for firing in volley whilst in formation. The yeoman, however, appeared to be capable of such, probably because anyone who fought as part of their feudal obligation probably received some sort of martial education prior to going on a campaign.

[The Widening Gyre]

Showing territory is very unstable without agriculture hardly means animals do not have understanding of it as theirs and not yours, which is why they mark it.

Some species do. Some species don't. Some species aggressively guard territory, others don't. Some species' territories are synonymous with their home ranges, others aren't. 'Territory', as I said, is one of those human impositions on the natural world that don't really map to what's seen on the ground.

Fragmentation is not a dysfunction because they do not have agriculture.

Fragmentation is certainly possible with agriculture as well. The first agricultural societies were not sedentary, and didn't cultivate specific plots of land exclusively. They traveled and sowed seeds and planting sites throughout their 'home range', and practiced what we call 'forest gardening' whereby their environment was actively developed and manipulated to produce food through things like managed burns. It's perfectly feasible for the social groups engaged in this behaviour to fragment, since the groups are not consuming anywhere near the totality of the food produced in a given system.

Besides which you implicitly concede the point here. If 'modern' hierarchy can only come about with sedentary agriculture, specialized divisions of labour, irrigation and whatnot, then it's really not 'natural' in the sense that a wolverine's territory is 'natural'. Which was really my ultimate point in all this.

[Ostroeuropa]

https://i.redd.it/grnr8kxbl6zz.jpg

Banditry continues.
Time for a war on crime?

(Notably, does not include tax violations.)