/k/ - Weapons

>>618257

>Greek flag

Not sure why that's there. My VPN is set to U.K.

>>618257

>Renaissance

OP the Renaissance is the name for a transitional period covering the Medieval Age and the Modern Age.

Meaning the Renaissance started while the Late Medieval time was still going and it ended some time after the Modern Age began.

Its not the time between those two ages.

>How prevalent were firearms during the Renaissance?

Common weapons, since firearms were already used in the Late Medieval Age before the Renaissance started.

>At what point did firearms replace pole arms as the primary weapon for infantry?

Battle of Cerignola and Garigliano(1503), Battle of Bicocca(1522) and the Battle of Pavia(1525) and the Battle of Nieuwpoort(1600), showed the superiority of Infantry armed with firearms over other types of Infantry, however you had still a huge load of pikemen running around during the Thirty Years War(1618-1648) and they were only abolished after the French invented the Bayonet and it became commonly used in all European Armies.

In Central and Western Europe the End of the Pike is usually dated with the Treaty of Ryswick(1697), which ended the Nine Years War(1688-1697) after which the Armies involved abolished its use, however North and Eastern European Armies still had Pikemen at the beginning of the 18th Century(1700-1800).

>At what point did bows and crossbows become uncommon on the battlefield?

Crossbows were quickly replaced on the Battlefield by firearms, since they were so similar in usage, after the Battle of Pavia they became an uncommon sight.

Bows are an iffy topic, since they were replaced in the majority of continental European Armies with Crossbows during the Late Medieval period, in Western Europe only the English and Spanish were avid Bow users. The last time the Bow saw usage by the English was during the early days of the English Civil War(1642–1651).

>At what point did plate armor begin to disappear?

Never, only its users changed. You could ask which users adopted, then dropped and then readopted plate armor.

>How did Renaissance tactics differ from late medieval tactics?

They were late medieval tactics, then they started to change bit by bit until they became modern military tactics. The Renaissance was an Era of slow but constant change and improvement.

>>618258

>using VPN

>for 8ch

Imagine being this paranoid

>>618286

This Kraut knows his shit.

Congrats.

>>618292

>or at least what they thought it was. Just consider that they fetishized white marble, while those white marble statues were originally brightly coloured and looked like an eyesore.

Sound like fucking bullshit m8.

>>618292

>Just consider this: the renaissance was originally a small circle of Italian intellectuals going "we wuz romanz an' shiieet", whostarted aping Greek and Roman art, or at least what they thought it was.

It was far more than that. Like mystery meat said the reason it was even possible for those artists to get successful at all was because of the high volume of trade and stability; if it weren't for those major structural changes, they're wouldn't be excess wealth to spend on lavish art projects and quality of life improvements. And this expansion in "luxury" pursuits wasn't limited to art, either: you saw an explosion of scientists appearing, such as Galileo, Da Vinci, Kepler, and Gutenberg (this one especially), writers such as Macchiavelli, Thomas More, and Shakespeare, and of course great explorers like Columbus. None of these would have risen to prominence if the Renaissance hadn't been a period of surplus, and increasing stability and trade. It was far from limited to Italy as you can see by the names involved (although Italy is the starting point, thanks to interconnected city states). Also, it's just a bit odd to suggest that the Renaissance artists were used as a political tool against the Catholic Church when they had such a functional relationship with it (Sistine Chapel, anyone?). Even Galileo, the archetypal example used by fedora tippers of "muh church suppressing science, oy vey", didn't have much beef with the church at all. In fact, it was his colleagues that used their connections to pressure the church into acting against him, because the discoveries he made had disproven some of their work. If you really wanted to point to someone in the Renaissance used to promote anti church rhetoric, your only real option is Martin Luther.

>>618292

Strelok you fell for the liberal trick of blaming the enlightenment period(which gave us modern Nationalism and Imperialism) for a view of the medieval age, which was actually created by post enlightenment period academics in the 19th and early 20th century by regurgitating the works of previous historians without questioning them or doing their own work. They do this that prove that 17th and 18th century people(that build Europe into a power house of Empires) were wrong in their knowledge and the actions they took based on this knowledge. In other words, they covertly shit on the modern age to shill for a post modern world view and "ethics".

>>618332

>That's wrong, because -as I wrote before- it's supposed to be the renaissance of the Graeco-Roman art.

Even if you limit the Renaissance to just art and nothing else (which really is disingenuous), you still can't say it didn't extend farther than Italy. Northern Flanders in particular was another hub of emergent Renaissance artwork, and France and Spain had their share of masters as well.

>>618363

>>618332

>According to Spengler European history really starts around 1000 A.D.

Isn'd dat jusd an arbidrary date? :DDDDD

>History is not linear, it's cyclical just like life

I've always thought that trying to find big patterns in history, and making big pseudotheories around them, is both a futile and useless effort distracting from why things actually happened the way they did and why things are the way they are.

>That's just a natural part of increasing stability. The Hanseatic League on the north was the exact same thing with their trade and arts.

Wrong

>The real difference is that they weren't aping old ruins

Fucking lmao

>But renaissance means rebirth, as in the rebirth of the Graeco-Roman arts

Source? Because in my dictionary it's also referring to Graeco-Roman thought (see humanism), and to a general rebirth of culture after and as opposed to the dark ages. Besides, since when do names have to have a 1:1 correspondence between etymology and meaning? Should we find new names for "church", "candidate", "emperor", or literally all of English and the rest of the human languages?

>> It was far from limited to Italy

>That's wrong

You're wrong

>It was a period more stable and prosperous than preceding periods, yet less stable and prosperous than succeeding periods.

That's not what distinguishes Renaissance from the late Middle-Ages or to the Counter-Reform period.

>It's no wonder, as since the end of the so-called feudal anarchy it's a constant increase of stability and prosperity in Europe.

Go back to the nineteenth century, positivism was already laughed at back then.

>>618329

>I really don't see how Imperialism comes from the Enlightenment, especially considering how it goes against its core principles - and how its origins can be found at least a century before the Enlightenment.

Because it isn't at least directly, the problem is that a lot of "political historians" see it that way and showing that was the goal of my post. If you look at the content these people produce, they seem to be of the opinion that between the 16th and until the first half of the 20th century Europe committed crime after crime against the poor people of the world and they try to expose it by showing how the knowledge and views the people had during these periods were false, hence all claims to European superiority are void in their mind.

>>618332

> I'd say that Spengler's idea…

Spenglers idea is false and you would knew that if you actually took the time to look at how humanity actually developed over the centuries.

The so called "barbarians" can't first tame themselves and then their lands, because the human as a living organism has an impact on his environment and a certain level of control over it.

The developing of human society and their influence on the territory around them is simultaneous.

>Unlike those two Rome was completely destroyed by the barbarians.

Which is historically false, but was an accepted academic view at the time Spengler lived.

>So splitting the whole history of the world into two at the point where Rome fell is arbitrary. You could say that antiquity ended with a random Egyptian dynasty, and the middle ages ended with the death of Caesar, and everything after that is the modern world. It would be just that arbitraty.

This is simply wrong, because of the level of influence these things had. Rome had a huge impact on all of Europe, North Africa and West Asia. Egypt on the other hand was just a major power of the Mediterranean world.

When Egypt had lost its glory despite the almost 4000 years of history, its was just treated as one of the many Kingdoms that went and were gone. When the Roman Empire that dominated Europe for just a couple of centuries vanished, it lead to a long period of strife, but also to the transportation of Roman technology and culture outside the traditional boarders the Roman Empire. Part of the reason behind the Christianization of Europe was the goal of European Kings to get access to Latin Scribes and with them access to the Technology and Logistics of Rome.

>That's wrong, because -as I wrote before- it's supposed to be the renaissance of the Graeco-Roman art.

Its not wrong and your statement only shows your lack of knowledge about the historic meaning of the word "art". Art at the time of the Renaissance didn't just mean a certain look for fancy decoration, but was a synonym for skill, knowledge and ability.

The goal of Renaissance artist was not only to recreate the look of the Greek and Roman culture, but also to reach their cultural abilities. They weren't just trying to make cool statues, but also experimented with architecture, researched medicine, explored ancient philosophy and build machines.

A huge part of the Renaissance was the mechanization that happened all over Europe, Windmills were build in great numbers to mill grain, Water and Tidemills were build to cut wood, make paper, cloth and metal wire or drive the hammer for a forge. Also maritime technology was advanced and put Europe at the top of the world.

>But tell me, do you disagree with the scientists who found the residue of pigments on these statues, or do find these bright and childish colours appealing?

Neither look bad and the only childish thing here is your understanding of history. Do you have any idea how much work it took for these people to produce these colors and paint their cityscape with them in antiquity?

Additionally they(the colored statues) look better than most statues made by so called artists since the Cold War.

>>618352

Just tell me this: did the people of France and Flanders name their architecture gothic they thought they were goths, or was it named as such by an Italian who thought that they are the descendants of the barbarians who destroyed Rome? If you label every piece of art in Europe from the 1300s to the 1600s as renaissance art, then of course that it's everywhere. But most of those artist north of the Alps didn't take part in this artistic movement of "reviving" the Roman artistic style, they just painted pictures that were stylish in that time.

>>618365

>I've always thought that trying to find big patterns in history, and making big pseudotheories around them, is both a futile and useless effort distracting from why things actually happened the way they did and why things are the way they are.

Then discussing anything with you is a waste of time. Enjoy your ignorance as the world you knew crumbles around you for reasons you will never comprehend.

>>618371

Let's supposed that a great plague or something eradicated 99% of Chinese a thousand years ago or so. Would it make Korea and Japan the inheritors of China? Would that make then Chinese? And what if they surpassed anything China ever had while crying about how the world will never be the same because China was lost?

>>618371

I would think these people would hold Enlightenment in high esteem, considering its supposed "antireligion" tendencies (while in reality they were just for removing or reducing temporal power and privilege of the clergy) and egalitarian ideals; but then again, I have seen a surprising number of "intellectuals" rejecting those ideals in this past couple years.

Are you referring to someone in particular?

>>618376

>>618374

>Renaissance is just some artists wewuzing

>Renaissance was only art

>Renaissance art is just aping Roman ruins

>Neoclassicism was a Renaissance movement

>Western Civilization has no Greco-Roman roots

>Renaissance was limited to Italy

>Barbarians completely destroyed Rome

>99 percent (ayy lmao) of Roman citizens died during the fall of the Roman Empire

>since 1000 AD stability and prosperity has only ever increased

>Italian artistic canons didn't spread throughout Europe because muh late gothic architecture

<But hey guys, I've read something about this "art and mathematics" guy whose flawed ideas are based on outdated historical insights

>Enjoy your ignorance :)

Non so se il riso o la pietá prevale. But nice job dodging all my actual points; now keep breathing your own fumes and distorting actual historical facts to fit your """"theory""" (or would "narrative" be more appropriate?); you'll surely see that crumbling of the world coming.

>>618386

>you'll surely see that crumbling of the world coming.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, I do think the US is in for a decline of sorts in the next century, although it's not going to be some catastrophic "crumble," just a loss of imperium. The magyar's completely wrong as to how and why this will happen, though.

History repeats itself in the sense that big empire with cultural hegemony will fall and give ways to lesser empires/kingdoms.

And this is actually a good thing.

>>618306

>but the quantity (and, some would say, quality) of authors and their works was way lower than that of both the period that came before and the period that came after

I don't know about that. The French and the Germans produced a great volume of literature in the 12th and early 13th centuries and I personally think that at least a few of those works are of a comparable quality to what came before and what came after.

>>618322

>Also, it's just a bit odd to suggest that the Renaissance artists were used as a political tool against the Catholic Church when they had such a functional relationship with it (Sistine Chapel, anyone?).

This. If there was conflict between artists and the Church, it was because of the divide between Scholasticism, which had a very pragmatic and utilitarian view of the way people should function, and Renaissance Humanism, which had a higher, more idealistic view of humanity and what it could achieve. The Humanists of the early Renaissance sincerely believed that this new philosophy would solve most of humanity's problems and launch it to unimaginable new heights. This great hope for the future of mankind is reflected in a lot of the art and literature of the time. However, by the 17th century, when religious tensions were higher, authorities were more corrupt, and wars were more bloody than they had ever been in the Middle Ages, it was clear that these dreams were never going to be a reality. This was also reflected in much of the art and literature of the time. Don Quixote, or at least the second half of it, can almost be read as a lamentation of Humanism's failure.

>>618371

>Additionally they(the colored statues) look better than most statues made by so called artists since the Cold War.

tbf anyone with the least artistic competence can make anything better to the post-WWII artist so that isn't saying much.

>>618286

>Crossbows were quickly replaced on the Battlefield by firearms, since they were so similar in usage, after the Battle of Pavia they became an uncommon sight.

False. Crossbows were more powerful than firearms for a long-ass time. Early firearms didn't penetrate most of armor, while xbows did, if we not talking artillery.

It was more or less that way before muskets with heavy bullets became common. Musketers also pretty much replaced those polearm-guys, OP asked about.

It did not happen because some guy invened musket though, but rather because of economics, production methods and as a result conscription methods changed and allowed for way bigger armies.

>>618257

>>618258

Faggot.

>>618376

>Let's supposed that a great plague or something eradicated 99% of Chinese a thousand years ago or so. Would it make Korea and Japan the inheritors of China?

Considering that both Korea and Japan was settled by people from China it would not be a problem in that regard.

Your point falls flat no matter how much you try to doge the fact, Spenglers views are based on horrible outdated information about the past.

>>618386

>I would think these people would hold Enlightenment in high esteem, considering its supposed "antireligion" tendencies (while in reality they were just for removing or reducing temporal power and privilege of the clergy) and egalitarian ideals;…

Oh they love the Enlightenment as long as they can use it for antireligious and egalitarian speeches, but in truth they absolute despise it because the cornerstone of the Enlightenment was reason and both the majority of modern academics and liberals hate nothing more than reason.

>Are you referring to someone in particular?

Nah just a general observation.

>>618538

Strelok do you lack reading comprehension? If you read my post, then you can see that I wrote that firearms came up in the late medieval period, the earliest date we have is 1326 for hand cannons.

If you then would have read further, you would notice that the first victories of infantry armed with the arquebus happened in the time frame from 1503 to 1600. In other words more or less a good 200 years later, so how is this not a long time?

A good example are the Conquistadors of the 16th century, during the Conquest of Mexico(1519–1521) Crossbowmen were still a major part of the Troops, however during the Conquest of the Inca Empire(1532–1572) they were a vanishing minority and you can see that the Battles of Bicocca(1522) and Pavia(1525) fall directly in between those dates.

>Early firearms didn't penetrate most of armor, while xbows did, if we not talking artillery.

This is false for two reason. First is the fact that the claim that crossbows/bows could penetrate armor in a significant way has been disproven a long time ago, proper armor at that time was mostly impenetrable to weapons.

Secondly among the first adopters of firearms in Europe were Knights and they wouldn't adopt them if it was unable to harm other Knights.

>Musketers also pretty much replaced those polearm-guys,…

Musketers would have been unable to replace Pikemen if they didn't have the Bayonet and you can see that Armies replaced their Pikemen with the introduction of the Bayonet.

>>618528

>Obvious statements do not make for a theory. Sure, eventually every empire will fall; but how, why, and when? This kind of fatalistic approaches to history often mask the truth and hinder its pursuit.

Because it's simple.

Empires grow float, people lose identity and trust in the empire, stronger, more tight-knit group appear and overtake it.

You are looking for specific reasons when the general reasons have been in repetition.

>>618556

>and all the rest of the empires in the rest of the fucking world, for the entirety of past and future human history - all fell because of these same, generic reasons?

While I think Spangler's model is retarded, I don't think you can discount a cyclical theory entirely—so long as you acknowledge that generalized theories can only give generalized predictions, and aren't hard and fast predictors of what happens. To that end, I think it's fair to say that any Imperial power, which is to say any large, established state that pursues an expansionist policy, has a lifespan on it. This is because the people of the empire petition or maneuver those in power to benefit themselves or their group, at the expense of everyone else. As everyone is endeavoring to suck on the government teat at the expense of everyone else simultaneously, productivity necessarily starts to go down over time, and will continue until the empire breaks. This break doesn't have to mean a total collapse, it can take any number of forms. Balkanization, for instance, or simply the colonies becoming independent. On average, this takes about ten generations or ~250 years to set in, from the start of a nation becoming imperial to the end of that period.

>as it missed most of the industrial revolution, eventually leading to the Soviet Revolution; or further still the fall of colonial empires (partly) with the World Wars

I'd have to disagree on this one specific point, although your argument is well-made. The Russians were late to the party with the building up of industry, in the nineteenth century they were catching up pretty quickly–for 18 of the 25 years right before WWI they were the fastest growing economy in the world, and had surpassed France as the fourth largest industrial power. If the commies had never been let back into the country by the Germs that trend would have continued and Russia would have become a far more powerful industrial base.

>>618573

Sorry if this reply is badly written, it's quite late here.

>I don't think you can discount a cyclical theory entirely

I'm not saying empires, or even nations, don't have a limited lifespan, or that they don't follow a cycle, quite the opposite: I'm saying that empires and nations necessarily have a lifespan and follow a rise-fall cycle (with sometimes but not always a period of stagnation between the two): there wouldn't be any empire if there wasn't a rise, and since there is a non-zero chance an empire may fall, it will eventually fall. Those things are obvious, and I don't think there's much insight to be gained in them, nor do I deem them interesting.

Neither am I saying that there are no common points between all empires (otherwise they wouldn't be grouped together and classified as empires!), some of which facilitate their inevitable fall: you have indeed pointed one out, namely that the citizens of an empire don't share an identity - with all the benefits a shared identity entails. Indeed, forging, fostering, and exploiting such an identity was one of the key "advancements" of the modern era, and indeed it is the union and correspondence of a people (in its fullest meaning) and a state to be called a "nation" (notice that you mostly encounter that term when talking of modern countries). Nationalism is a powerful glue, and helps keeping territories united - or even getting them united: I would never have had the opportunity call myself "Italian" without it.

What I'm contesting is uniting those two things - the necessary cyclical nature of empires and their inherent characteristics - simply because I think it's useless, and might even be harmful.

Not only is it an union of obvious with obvious: as you've said, those theories are also neither hard nor fast predictors (nor explainers). So, you've got yourself a theory that does not give any new insight, and only explains part of the reason any empire falls, and only does so some of the times. What's the point?

You had empires and countries falling because of losing defensive wars, losing aggressive wars, winning defensive wars but not enough, winning aggressive wars but not enough; falling because of famine, economic collapse, volcanic eruption and ensuing tsunami; because of dynastic inheritance, treaties, epidemics, corruption, or nationalism, because of anglos, frogs, nips, or jews.

Trying to fit all of this into a single mold, even if you're accepting inaccuracy in predictions, requires the mold to be extremely generic, to the point of being obvious and uninteresting; or, if your mold is even slightly less devoid of features, it requires you to distort and cut off bits, chunks, entire portions and swathes of truth as you fruitlessly try to make it fit actual history.

>The Russians were late to the party with the building up of industry,

Yes, I meant that their industry, in the embryonic state it was in, couldn't support the same state of mobilization that Prussian or French industries could - eventually leading to the total collapse of their economy, leading in turn to the revolution (and tbh, France and Prussia themselves got close to the same fate). Ironically enough, the same chain of events might have almost happened to Soviet Russia during the first years of Barbarossa, hence the potential importance of lend-lease.

>in the nineteenth century they were catching up pretty quickly–for 18 of the 25 years right before WWI they were the fastest growing economy in the world, and had surpassed France as the fourth largest industrial power.

Thanks, didn't know that.

>>618687

TL;DR:

>>618565

>Because it's simple.

It's not.

>Empires grow float, people lose identity

No empire had its people share a single identity; otherwise it would be a nation.

>and trust in the empire,

Oftentimes citizens kept trust in the empire until the empire ceased to exist.

>stronger, more tight-knit group appear and overtake it.

Take a look at any list of human empires, have a quick read of how they ended; and you'll see that in the vast majority of cases, even if you try to simplify events and are willing to distort them, this simply didn't happen.

This genus of theories, I suspect, stems from the fact that Western consciousness is inevitably marked by the Western Roman Empire (ironic, considering what the Magyar was saying), and scarred by its fall, to the point they've become the Empire and the Fall, to the detriment of all other empires and falls; and too often people like you and I, fascinated by history and Rome, disillusioned in society and worried by the erosion of values, subscribe to a simplistic view of how and why the Fall of the Roman Empire happened, and succumb to the easy and charming, misleading and coarse drawing of crass parallels to the current state of Western Civilization; in what may be nothing more than yet another expression of the eternal and omnipresent "the world is going to shit" opinion that has been documented throughout all phases of all civilization ever since the Greeks; and, having drawn those parallels, extend them to the very concepts of "empire" and "fall of empires" in order to legitimize them.

>You are looking for specific reasons when the general reasons have been in repetition.

You're ignoring specific reasons and replacing them your personal interpretation of uninteresting, and oftentimes unfitting, general reasons.

>>618687

>You had empires and countries falling because of losing defensive wars, losing aggressive wars, winning defensive wars but not enough, winning aggressive wars but not enough; falling because of famine, economic collapse, volcanic eruption and ensuing tsunami; because of dynastic inheritance, treaties, epidemics, corruption, or nationalism, because of anglos, frogs, nips, or jews.

Those are all the straws that broke the camel's back, the final things which caused the collapse. John Glubb's postulate, for instance, focuses more on the forces that weaken an empire and prime it for a fall, and I think you can find a commonality there, which is increasing decadence as a result of the state redistributing wealth, which slowly but surely kills productivity. You don't think there's any meaningful cause-and-effect relation that can be drawn there, that can be generalized to most empires?

>Yes, I meant that their industry, in the embryonic state it was in, couldn't support the same state of mobilization that Prussian or French industries could - eventually leading to the total collapse of their economy, leading in turn to the revolution

But the economy wasn't in collapse–like I said, it was steadily growing and would have continued if not for the Bolsheviks. Lend-lease was very important for the USSR, you're right there. I believe in the Barbarossa thread another anon posted statistics that showed us burgers were supplying 25% of their foodstuff and 40% of their lead with lend-lease. But the reason for that wasn't a poor economy before the revolution, but the result of the Bolsheviks taking a nascent but fast-growing industrial sector and running it into the ground, because that's what commies do. Apologies if I come across as prickly, but I keep hearing commies say that communism would have worked just fine in my country if only it was "given a chance" to develop its industry. This irritates me just a bit, as the fucking pinkos were the ones who prevented industry from developing in the first place when they took over and burned that shit down. The goddamn nerves of these people, they'd shoot themselves in the head and blame capitalists for mining the lead in the bullet.

>>618689

>No empire had its people share a single identity; otherwise it would be a nation.

Yeah, it does, like the Roman empire at the beginning, the Japan Empire and the various China destiny.

>Oftentimes citizens kept trust in the empire until the empire ceased to exist.

Example, perhaps the germans of the 2nd Reich?

>Take a look at any list of human empires, have a quick read of how they ended; and you'll see that in the vast majority of cases, even if you try to simplify events and are willing to distort them, this simply didn't happen.

Ottoman empire failed because the smaller but stronger empires in Europe destroys them.

The same for the Mongol empire, destabilization of lost of leadership leading to various ethnic groups rising against it and toppling it.

The British empire with the American colonials gaining a single identity.

That's what I can name.

>>618723

>like the Roman empire at the beginning

Even when they were just a kingdom the Romans were ruling over multiple distinct tribes. If you follow the Aenean founding myth rather than Romulus/Remus, the Romans themselves were complete foreigners in the Italian peninsula, being Greeks.

>Japan

Do Koreans and the rest of Southeast Asia seem Japanese to you?

>>618726

>Even when they were just a kingdom the Romans were ruling over multiple distinct tribes. If you follow the Aenean founding myth rather than Romulus/Remus, the Romans themselves were complete foreigners in the Italian peninsula, being Greeks.

The founding myth is that the romans are troyans, not greek. Also, they have united everyone into a single entity of Roman.

>Do Koreans and the rest of Southeast Asia seem Japanese to you?

No, and japanese don't pretend to. They are colonizing them.

>>618698

I hope you'll pardon me if I start from your previous post >>618573 with a point fatigue made me forget to write yesterday.

>This is because the people of the empire petition or maneuver those in power to benefit themselves or their group, at the expense of everyone else.

The same thing happens in any entity at any size. Taking for instance national countries: lawyers, taxists, soldiers, bakers all petition for benefits to their group at the implicit expense of the others; the old will want higher pensions while the young want less taxes; workers benefit from inflation while savers are damaged by it. In some empires, especially non-colonial ones, those transversal divisions can be more marked than the ethnical or cultural divide between subjects.

Back to your last post, now.

>Those are all the straws that broke the camel's back, the final things which caused the collapse.

Sometimes those were the iron bars that broke the camel's back, by hitting it at high speed - Carthaginian, Napoleonic, Japanese empires weren't showing more than the usual share of corruption before they got extinguished. Were there other factors weakening them and priming them for fall? Sure. Did any empire fall for any single reason? Not a chance. Indeed, I'm the first to say that the fall of an empire is almost always a complicated affair.

>focuses more on the forces that weaken an empire and prime it for a fall, and I think you can find a commonality there,

I can also sort of agree here, with a couple reservations. Studying features inherent to empires, and how those participate in their fall, could have an interest, although I suspect it wouldn't be a very deep field and would soon precipitate into sophisms. However, I don't think those should be the focus (especially since it seems to inevitably be at the expense of the study of the specific causes, as this thread helps to show), and I don't think you can ever point out any single commonality as a leading cause of fall (not to speak of how those commonalities often cannot even be applied, as I've already argued).

>which is increasing decadence as a result of the state redistributing wealth, which slowly but surely kills productivity.

This is starting to almost feel like a meme to me, in its actual meaning. Take the Roman Empire: the first considerable records we have are of authors of the late Republic. Those were lamenting the deterioration of both private and public morals of the late Kingdom, saying it led to the ends of Kings (with the educating tale of Tarquinius Superbus and Brutus); then lamenting the deterioration of the Republic, where at first great and uncorruptible men always saved Rome from the bad situations less great and more corrupted men had put it in, whereas now there are no more great and uncorruptible men (or those men are inevitably outmatched); and then taking both of those narrations as parallels to indicate that "modern" Rome, aka the late Republic, was going to shit because of decadence (the abandonment of the mos maiorum), even if was in its period of fastest expansion. Those were the first Roman authors we have extensive traces of; later authors, in all imperial ages, would all inevitably say the same things (if you'll allow this gross oversimplification of mine, of course) - ancient Rome was honest and great, modern Rome is decadent - all the way to the actual fall of (a part of) the Empire. And the people that witnessed this fall, I would imagine, said: "Ha! I was right all along! The decadence of modern Rome led to its fall!".

The truth is, I think, that corruption and incompetence is endemic to any organization; and that in large organizations, incompetence and corruption are more widespread and cause bigger damages (and for once it's not me inventing stuff, as this is basic management theory); and that when an empire inevitably falls, people, who're always eager to hate on corruption and incompetence and show to others and themselves their hate thereof; people, who always see an erosion of morals in their time; us people are a bit too quick to point our finger on the corruption and incompetence, and perceived decadence; sometimes ignoring other, in my taste more interesting, observations you could make on why the empire fell.

>You don't think there's any meaningful cause-and-effect relation that can be drawn there,

Yes, I think you can draw meaningful cause-and-effect relations there.

>that can be generalized to most empires?

Eh, I'm kind of on the fence.

>But the economy wasn't in collapse–like I said, it was steadily growing and would have continued if not for the Bolsheviks.

I've done some quick research, and I'm more confused than before. Some sources almost don't mention the economy at all, others mention that it was stretched thin by the war and then collapsed after the revolution, others are saying that the strain on the production and the transportation network caused by the war were leading causes of the revolution (e.g. P. Gatrell: Russia’s First World War. A Social and Economic History).

I'll take the easy way out and say this is one of the parts of history that I know the least, and that most of what I could say on the topic wouldn't be interesting or certain enough.

>Apologies if I come across as prickly,

Tbh I feared I was the one who was coming across as prickly

>I keep hearing commies say that communism would have worked just fine in my country

Russia?

>The goddamn nerves of these people, they'd shoot themselves in the head and blame capitalists for mining the lead in the bullet.

True, and nicely said.

>>618723

>Yeah, it does, like the Roman empire at the beginning,

The "Roman empire at the beginning" was aptly named a kingdom, and only ruled over its own people and the countryside surrounding Rome. It can hardly be called an Empire; and as soon as it started conquering other people in Italy, beginning with Alba Longa and the Sabines, it ceased to have a people with a single identity (another telling fact is that the last three of the seven kings of Rome was Etruscan).

Eventually, Alba Longan and Sabine identities were absorbed into the Roman one (somewhere in the late Kingdom/early Republic, I think), but by that point Rome already ruled over people distant from Rome both geographically and culturally. Those same Italian peoples would, several centuries later, revolt - almost succeeding in ending Rome in the Social War of 91-88 BC - showing they were not yet integrated in the "Roman identity", despite the addition of other, more alien people (e.g. Greeks, North Africans) to the Republic by that time.

Or maybe you're referring to the beginning of the Roman Empire proper, so the reign of Augustus (who came into power with a war that integrated Egypt as a province after Caesar had de facto vassalized it, bringing yet another people with its own separate identity into the "empire"), in which case you're still wrong.

You won't get me at the Roman game, I think.

>the Japan Empire

As the burger said, it ruled over more than the Japanese.

>and the various China destiny.

Ayy lmao. Are you implying that China ever was an ethnically or culturally homogeneous union of people sharing a single identity? It's always been one people ruling over the others, until it gets overthrown and replaced by another people who rules over the others. Even today, despite all its propaganda and modern means of control, I'd hardly call the PRC a "nation" and say all Chinese (even if you exclude shit like Tibet, which you shouldn't) share a single identity.

>>No empire had its people share a single identity; otherwise it would be a nation.

But you seem to have missed my central point, beyond any specific example: the definition itself of "empire" requires it to be a single entity - generally governed by an emperor, but we'll ignore that part for the sake of this discussion - ruling over multiple nations or peoples (and thus I disagree with the definition in >>618573 ), ergo not sharing a single identity. If it only ruled over a single people, it would be called either a nation, a colony, a kingdom or other names, depending on how it's ruled and whether the ruling class belongs to the people being ruled or not.

>Example, perhaps the germans of the 2nd Reich?

That's an interesting case, since some social classes had still trust in the Empire while others were on the brink of rebellion.

The first examples coming to mind are various ancient empires, such as the Carthaginian for whom we hold no record that I know of of demoralization within the army or the state, some of the empires that got split or absorbed after losing a war with an entity of similar power (such as the Japanese empire, where civilians - even some indoctrinated Koreans, if memory serves - were still willing to an hero for the emperor), most empires that ceased to exist because they got split between inheriting brothers (such as Charle Magne's HRE), and the Napoleonic Empire, whose emperor had to be sent to the other side of the world because his people would still follow him.

>>618728

>The founding myth is that the romans are troyans, not greek.

Troyans are greek.

>No, and japanese don't pretend to. They are colonizing them.

The point is that Japanese and Koreans, both subjects of the same empire (even if not at the same level), did not share an identity: thus Japan and Korea got split after the war (and even countries that won the war suffered the same fate a short time later, even if only de jure). We were arguing how a single, national identity is a big help in keeping any nation together, among other benefits.

Sorry for triple posting, post length limits and my own autismo fucked me over.

>>618332

Is that first picture taken during a flood?

>>618757

>Or maybe you're referring to the beginning of the Roman Empire proper, so the reign of Augustus (who came into power with a war that integrated Egypt as a province after Caesar had de facto vassalized it, bringing yet another people with its own separate identity into the "empire"), in which case you're still wrong.

I'm talking about that, how? Egypt is still Egypt when it's ruled over Roman, Greece the same. Roman Empire still holds the national identity as being Roman.

>As the burger said, it ruled over more than the Japanese.

And? These countries are still under their own ethnic and culture, while the Japan empire still holds its japanese as their main national identity.

>Ayy lmao. Are you implying that China ever was an ethnically or culturally homogeneous union of people sharing a single identity?

Its entity was Han chinese ruling over other small ethnicities.

>he definition itself of "empire" requires it to be a single entity - generally governed by an emperor,

Wrong? An empire is an entity but it can have many vassals in it, same for kingdom.

>That's an interesting case, since some social classes had still trust in the Empire while others were on the brink of rebellion.

The 2nd Reich also was Germanization program for the poles and the czech that still inhabit parts of it. It still maintains its germanic identity.

So again, what are you talking about? Why is your empire so arbitrary?

>>618880

Yet an empire has its advantage of nationalism as well.

Nobody can deny the roman had nationalism, the japanese had nationalism, the germans have nationalism, despite the fact they colonized some other nations.

Same for the brits and french, even America.

The model that empire is inherently lacking nationalism is wrong.

>>618917

Agreed.

>>618917

I wish we had this kind of discussions in /his/

>>618940

/k/ is the best place to talk about any given subject, except guns.

>>619324

>Modern democracy is far removed from the original Greek democracy. It might as well not even be called that.

Nevertheless the cultural heritage is still there, and the major deviations from Greek democracy only started in the last century. With only free landowning citizens having the right to vote, the early US had more similarities to the greek form.

>>619324

>Early muskets were very unreliable in terms of accuracy and power. Knights adopted them to defeat lesser-armored opponents.

You should learn more about history. Early firearms were Hand Cannons(1326-14xx), which were late replaced by the Arquebus(1411-1600) as Infantry weapons.

The Musket was first a type of heavy Arquebus and then developed into its own thing after 1521 and they started to replace the Arquebus by 1550.

In other words early firearms were used a good century before the musket was a thing.

>If they were powerful enough to invalidate plate that easily, plate would've been phased out quicker.

Strelok proper Plate armor was a thing owned by the rich, common soldiers especially foot soldier rarely wore a full suit of plate armor, usually they only had a helmet, a breastplate and/or chain maile. Your picture show people usually employed as cavalry.

This is what people commonly ignore then they talk about the effective of bows, crossbows and early firearms in medieval times, yes the armor could stop them, however few combatants at that time were completely covered from had to toe in plate armor.

>Plate was often tested against early firearms to gauge their quality and protection.

Some Breastplates were created to be bullet proof and tested in that way, but not all of them. Once again this leave the rest of the body unprotected and as firearms became more common Plate was replaced with more flexible armor.

>>619372

>You should learn more about history.

You should learn more about firearms. Early hand cannons were extremely inaccurate due to the volatility of gunpowder, imperfections during the manufacturing of the projectile and the guns themselves, and weight of the solid iron barrels. The main advantages of early hand cannons was that they were cheap and much easier to manufacture en mass compared to warbows and crossbows and didn't require as much training for ordinance men. Other than that, they were more of a psychological weapon and smoke screen device (from the burning powder) than they were long range weapons, and a skilled bowman could still match them. There's a reason why they were replaced in less than a century. Even early muskets were still only half as effective due to barrel/projectile machining not being quite on par yet until the age of Colonization. Hell, rifling wasn't even viable until the late 19th century. You're overestimating them with anecdotes of when they started to replace other weaponry, when in fact their effectiveness was only really earned when they were finally commonplace by the 1600s with volley fire.

Just because they were used, doesn't mean they were a complete upgrade over other time-tested weapons. They went through a lot of changes from the 1300s to the 1600s specifically because they were lacking in factors they were expected to excel at.

>Strelok proper Plate armor was a thing owned by the rich, common soldiers especially foot soldier rarely wore a full suit of plate armor

Yeah, no shit, Hans. I'm specifically talking about people who had access to them, not common peasantry. I know only the rich could buy them, and that they'd often buy the parts over time due to exorbitant prices for quality production, especially in Northern Italy/Southern Germany. What's your point?

>Some Breastplates were created to be bullet proof and tested in that way, but not all of them.

Obviously, but they were developed further with the introduction of firearms. And that's IF said firearms were accurate at all by stroke of luck. Plate armor was very notorious for being very hard to punch through, be it with bows, pole weapons or early guns. There's a reason why the dagger was well known as the biggest "knightkiller" in those times, at least until proper matchlocks showed up.

>>619372

>Your picture show people usually employed as cavalry.

Anyone who had access to plat armor was most likely rich enough to afford a horse as well. Most knights did, because they weren't dumb. Walking into battle is for peasants.

The idea that good armor was reserved for the rich by the time fire arms sorta went mainstreams is false. They had munitions armor.

>>618887

Sauce of quote?

>>618257

Would the sword carried by the guy in the second pic be considered a broadsword? A sidesword? A rapier? It seems long enough and pointy enough to be a rapier but I thought they used shorter and broader blades for war.

Also how would you classify the broader&shorter blades? Sideswords?

>>619711

Hilted rapier.

>broader&shorter blades

There's many designs, but the most well known is the bastard sword.

>>619620

He's sperging out because the statue in its paint has light hair. He's pretty much saying

>WE WUZ ROMANS N SHEEEIT

One thing I rarely see mentioned is grenades. The Byzantines had incendiary grenades as early as the ~700's and by the 1600's explosives and cast iron frag grenades were in wide usage especially for sieges.

>>619570

>Most of them were too poor to buy a horse and were used as foot soldiers

Medieval field armies were fully mounted. Soldiers who fought on foot were essentially dragoons.

"Real" foot soldiers were exceptions such as Scots, Swiss. Or town guards who weren't deployed in the field. Foot field soldiers were Renaissance thing (most known examples are Landsknecht)

>>619324

>In the later 16th century, when firearms truly started coming into their own, armor was 'proofed' to different levels

There is study about proofing using actual surviving armors with proof marks. Basically most proofmarks were marketing scam left by greatly under-powered shots. These proof dents are too small for full power hits.

>>619458

True for early Middle ages, less for late Middle Ages and completely wrong for Renaissance. During Renaissance times munition set of armor cost fell to the 3-4 month salary of the soldiers.

>>619867

>Medieval field armies were fully mounted. Soldiers who fought on foot were essentially dragoons.

Wrong, Europe didn't have enough Horses for that. There is a good video from scholagladiatoria, which talks about how much medieval Soldiers were paid. Mounted Archer(not Archers that shot from the horse like the Mongols, but Archers that had a horse) had higher pay than Archers without Horses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUsYzRWcVv8

>Foot field soldiers were Renaissance thing (most known examples are Landsknecht)

False, what made Renaissance foot soldiers special was that they were used in massed infantry tactics like the Pike square. Foot soldiers have been the back bone of Armies since forever.

>There is study about proofing using actual surviving armors with proof marks. Basically most proofmarks were marketing scam left by greatly under-powered shots. These proof dents are too small for full power hits.

Yes, but once again that is beside the point. Chain Mail armor had been around since antiquity, yet medieval Chain Mail was better thanks to the advancements metallurgy. Also there was a difference in the quality of chain maile made for a simple Vassal and chain maile made for a Noble.

The point is that not every Renaissance soldier or even the majority of Renaissance Soldiers ran around in bullet proof munitions armor, which was reserved for the higher class troops.

>True for early Middle ages, less for late Middle Ages and completely wrong for Renaissance. During Renaissance times munition set of armor cost fell to the 3-4 month salary of the soldiers.

As I pointed out at the beginning of the thread, the Renaissance is a period covering both part of the Late Middle Ages and the Modern Period, its not the time between those two. Also the salary of soldiers changed drastically several time in this period. Early Landsknechts had a really high pay, with many coming from the lower nobility, later Landsknechts had really poor pay and were mostly commoners.

>>619848

Because most Chinese history is bullshit lies made up in the 1980s.

Three quarters of their "historical" artifacts were made during that time, including the shit that "proves" they had guns and bombs.

>>618880

>pic related

According to that pic the renaissance had a neoclassical style of architecture. Contrast it with your words:

>>618329

>Neoclassicism, the ca. 1750-1850 movement

Either you are wrong, or that almighty dictionary is incorrect. Which one is it?

>wikipedia

So then, let's see what wikipedia has to say about this subject!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance

>The Renaissance has a long and complex historiography, and, in line with general scepticism of discrete periodizations, there has been much debate among historians reacting to the 19th-century glorification of the "Renaissance" and individual culture heroes as "Renaissance men", questioning the usefulness of Renaissance as a term and as a historical delineation.[11] The art historian Erwin Panofsky observed of this resistance to the concept of "Renaissance":

>It is perhaps no accident that the factuality of the Italian Renaissance has been most vigorously questioned by those who are not obliged to take a professional interest in the aesthetic aspects of civilization—historians of economic and social developments, political and religious situations, and, most particularly, natural science—but only exceptionally by students of literature and hardly ever by historians of Art.[12]

>Some observers have called into question whether the Renaissance was a cultural "advance" from the Middle Ages, instead seeing it as a period of pessimism and nostalgia for classical antiquity,[13] while social and economic historians, especially of the longue durée, have instead focused on the continuity between the two eras,[14] which are linked, as Panofsky observed, "by a thousand ties".[15]

But there is more!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Middle_Ages#Historiography_and_periodization

>For 18th-century historians studying the 14th and 15th centuries, the central theme was the Renaissance, with its rediscovery of ancient learning and the emergence of an individual spirit.[6] The heart of this rediscovery lies in Italy, where, in the words of Jacob Burckhardt: "Man became a spiritual individual and recognized himself as such".[7] This proposition was later challenged, and it was argued that the 12th century was a period of greater cultural achievement.[8]

>Modern historiography on the period has reached a consensus between the two extremes of innovation and crisis. It is now generally acknowledged that conditions were vastly different north and south of the Alps, and the term "Late Middle Ages" is often avoided entirely within Italian historiography.[13] The term "Renaissance" is still considered useful for describing certain intellectual, cultural, or artistic developments, but not as the defining feature of an entire European historical epoch.[14] The period from the early 14th century up until – and sometimes including – the 16th century, is rather seen as characterized by other trends: demographic and economic decline followed by recovery, the end of western religious unity and the subsequent emergence of the nation state, and the expansion of European influence onto the rest of the world.[14]

It's like you are just repeating outdated ideas about the renaissance, and even fucking kikepedia is more up-to-date than you.

Bonus round:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_Bruni

>He was the earliest person to write using the three-period view of history: Antiquity, Middle Ages, and Modern. The dates Bruni used to define the periods are not exactly what modern historians use today, but he laid the conceptual groundwork for a tripartite division of history.

>While it probably was not Bruni's intention to secularize history, the three period view of history is unquestionably secular and so Bruni has been called the first modern historian.[2] The foundation of Bruni's conception can be found with Petrarch, who distinguished the classical period from later cultural decline, or tenebrae (literally "darkness"). Bruni argued that Italy had revived in recent centuries and could therefore be described as entering a new age.

So he was wewuzing about Rome so hard he thought people in the previous millennium were living in total darkness. And that's why we are supposed to cut European history in half at a random point.

>>618880

>You really didn't understand shit, did you?

Says the one who has no idea how a non-urbanized society looks like. It has three castes: rulers, warrios and common folk. The rulers use the warriors both to tax and to protect the common folk. If they get conquered the surviving members of the ruling caste will most likely lose their status, and it's up-in-the-air what will happen with the warriors, but it can be rather negative too. So if those kingdoms constantly change, then the most important parts of society don't enjoy any kind of stability. And they are the ones who provide the stability required for urbanization and long-distance trade. After all, the renaissance was possible exactly because by that time Italy was highly urbanized, and so they had citizens and even urbanite élites that gladly used their time, money and power to promote intellectual and artistic endeavours.

>wrong

Excuse me, I didn't realize that the Frankish Empire still exist.

>urbanization, for instance, was on uninterrupted and constant rise throughout all of history

POSITIVISM! IT'S FUCKING POSITIVISM!

Urbanization was constantly rising because new civilizations developed, one after the other, and they all had their own territories that they urbanized. What made it explode is that the Faustian civilization is much better in such technical matters than any one before, and so it made possible to develop even greater cities. And this civilization has the greatest reach, to the point that even the wildlands of Africa are full of cities now. But that doesn't mean there are no cycles of rise-and-fall working "inside" individual civilizations. Or do you honestly deny the fact that Rome fell from a metropolis of 1-2 million people to the size of a bigger town?

>Do you actually think that's what happened during the fall or Rome?

I was clearly asking you if Italy turned into into a peninsula of cannibal niggers after the end of the renaissance.

>99%

I said that because China would need a catastrophe of that magnitude to end up as the Roman Empire. But wait, if I understand you correctly the Roman Empire never disappeared, just like the Frankish Empire!

>>618917

>renaissance firearms

<realist firearms

<expressionist firearms

<romantic firearms

<rococo firearms

<empire firearms

<dadaist firearms

<gothic firearms

<art deco firearms

<baroque firearms

<classicist firearms

<surrealist firearms

<post-modern firearms

That list just looks silly to me. But if you want to discuss firearms, then you posted two pictures with matchlock firearms, one with wheellock firearms, and one with what seems to be a flintlock action. I think wheellock is the most exciting of the bunch, and so here are two interesting videos:

>Beautiful 1625 Breechloading Wheellock

https://invidio.us/watch?v=beOgmCxeh7A

>Massive Wheellock Hand Mortars

https://invidio.us/watch?v=6YIIUtUKm3g

>>619389

>rifling wasn't even viable until the late 19th century.

What do you mean by viable? Vid related is something every Strelok should see, and it shows how rifling was done well before the 19th century. The problem comes from the tactics of the time: it was much slower to load a gun with a rifled barrel, and so most units just didn't bother, but that's why there were specialized light infantry formations:

https://invidio.us/watch?v=wrhRT9yx4YE

Actually, regular infantry often used undersized balls to speed up the reloading process. Of course the Minié ball cut this whole Gordian knot, and then breechloading weapons don't even need that.

>>618363

Roman culture customs and views on the world were definitively destroyed with the collapse of the western Roman Empire. Pretending that Faustian civilization and Roman civilization are the same thing is a meme.

>>620039

Yeah, that was not a feature of the Roman Empire.

>>619911

The reason the mongols won was that they stole from the civilization they conquered, like the Tangut.

What do you think they were until Temujin?

>>620042

Mostly steppe tribes with their own culture and innovations supported by and developed from the importation of Chinese and Arab technology, for example the superheavy cavalry of the ancient northern Xiongnu, Xianbei and Dingling tribes. I'm aware the Mongols only rose to prominence after the big boy himself knocked heads together to form a proper nation out of tribes, like a Zulu precursor.

Something else I didn't point out is that I'm fairly sure every time China was conquered it was because of outsiders exploiting their empirical cycle of basically being guaranteed to fuck themselves up with corruption and overexpansion every 400 years on average.

>>619981

Please tell me that your beliefs are consistent enough to consider Davido-kun to be real Japanese. After all he speaks the language and apes their customs.

>>620042

Nomads acquire specialists by importing people, because it's faster and more straightforward than trying to learn their ways. If the Mongols needed siege engineers they bought them from China. If they needed craftsmen they forced craftsmen from Europe, the Middle East and Asia to live on their lands. Magyar tribes had this same thing going on, e.g. the Székelys are most likely the descendants of tribes whose sole purpose was to defend the borders. People from all around Europe were kidnapped to be peasants on their new lord's land. And they used tons of mercenaries, both other nomads and vikings. Our first dynasty kept doing the same thing. Our first king needed European heavy cavalry, and so he invited German knights to live here and made them part of the nobility. Later when the rulers wanted towns and cities they invited settlers from west. When they needed light cavalry they settled whole tribes of Eurasian nomads in the middle of the country. Libruls today like to argue how this makes us some kind of a multikulti nation.

>>620076

>Please tell me that your beliefs are consistent enough to consider Davido-kun to be real Japanese

I never claimed Euros or Americans were Romans, so there is no contradiction in my denying that fact.

>>619881

Can I get sources on that? I'd greatly appreciate it.

>>620172

t. VPN jumping, thread hopping faggot.

>>620076

>>620072

In short, they steal shit and didn't maintain their culture, which is why some mongols become fucking muslims i.e. the Timur.

That empire is never gonna last because of the lack of unision of identity.

>>620769

> The "Platemail" combo never existed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExJdZigxn-M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYbhzcgs70c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jftedhuCFw

>>620796

He's literally only wearing plate that covers areas maille doesn't, and he's using the arming doublet. As I said, people didn't wear plate directly over a mail shirt/hauberk, as in in the whole body, only in areas where maille wasn't present, and you just proved my point.

>>620806

>i didn't watch the videos the post