History questions not worth their own thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
As such for Kruschev to do 'something' he would have to have struck in Europe or at sea - neither proposition would have worked in the favour of the CCCP so as a result I don't believe that there would have anything other than what we actually saw....

Wouldn't it? My guess is that it would not even go through a conventional phase, it would immediately escalate to all-out strategic nuclear war. Sure, there would only be losers by the end of that war. But with infrastructure destroyed all across the northern hemisphere, where would that leave the the US and the USSR and its respective military alliances? Unable to project power across the oceans, that's what. Western Europe would likely have been compelled to surrendered to the soviets. And even in a post-apocalyptic world Eurasia is still worth more, resource-wise, than America.

Both sides would have been huge losers, I repeat. But the soviets could well end up comparatively stronger.
 
Wouldn't it? My guess is that it would not even go through a conventional phase, it would immediately escalate to all-out strategic nuclear war. Sure, there would only be losers by the end of that war. But with infrastructure destroyed all across the northern hemisphere, where would that leave the the US and the USSR and its respective military alliances? Unable to project power across the oceans, that's what. Western Europe would likely have been compelled to surrendered to the soviets. And even in a post-apocalyptic world Eurasia is still worth more, resource-wise, than America.

Both sides would have been huge losers, I repeat. But the soviets could well end up comparatively stronger.
On the other hand, the USSR would also have been hit far harder by the US. I doubt they'd be doing any marching into Western Europe. The interesting question is how badly WE would get nuked during all of this. Then there's the question of China.
 
let me say Russians were more bluffy and they would fight only if they were forced to , yet the victory in Cuba - as it must appeared to the White House - is why Uncle Sam "attacked" in Vietnam .
 
On the other hand, the USSR would also have been hit far harder by the US. I doubt they'd be doing any marching into Western Europe. The interesting question is how badly WE would get nuked during all of this. Then there's the question of China.

Western Europe would look like the USSR. AFAIK the Soviets didn't have quite the capability to hit us as we did them at that time (1963), which was a major reason why Khrushchev backed down in the end. It was also why Gorshkov set off the massive restructuring and expansion of the Soviet Navy.
 
And now for something completely different...:D

In Shogun 2, daimyo's bodyguards wear outfits which look as if they've got a balloon strapped to their back:

screenies:
22473SHOGUN2_fighting_the_generals_bodyguard.jpg

shogun-ii-total-war-20110316041925150-000.jpg

shog1.jpg


Is that sort of outfit remotely historically accurate? If yes, what the hell was the point of it? :confused:
 
If Dachs is speechless, there must be a curse on it.

Lets back away slowly... and turn round...


Ok. So... um... How is Louis the IV of France important?
 
Celts are a ancient European Culture that arose near Hallsatt and spread throughout Europe. Their influence reached Iberia as the Celtiberians, France as the Gauls, Italy as the Gauls as well, and a group even went to Anatolia.

The Gauls are what the romans called the celts in France and in northern Italy. They are somewhat like the sterotypical small towns I raid you you raid back kind of thing, but they had some trade and they do band together in different distinct groups against outsiders in war.

Protip: Gaul can be quartered into three halves, according to Caeser. (And this is the wrong translation :p)
 
a group even went to Anatolia.

...which is why, in Latin poetry, priests of the Great Mother (who was associated with that region) are called Galli. The fact that this was an earthy pun, since said priests were popularly supposed to be eunuchs, helped.

There was never a Gaulish or Celtic "nation", though.
 
What exactly were the Celts or Gauls and did they ever form a single nation or proto-nation?
Celtic is a language group. You know how there's that thread on "the Turkic people" elsewhere on the forums? Yeah, this is the same thing. There were significant groups of people who spoke Celtic languages in the Iron Age in Iberia, the British Isles, France, northern Italy, Bohemia, Thrace, the Hungarian Plain and northern Serbia, and in central Anatolia. They were not politically linked whatsoever. The Celtic-speakers at Ankyra in the third century BC who lived in the famous Three Galatian Tribes would not have known anything of those in north-central Iberia in Numantia at the same time, much less had cultural and political dialogue. Within the group, there were of course many political subdivisions, usually referred to as tribes; there were many Gallic groups, of whom the Aeduoi and Auernoi are perhaps the most well known; these groups did not split evenly linguistically either. There was no common pantheon, insofar as there were any pantheons among any of the Celtic-speaking peoples.

It was once rather chic to refer to the Hallstatt and La Tène material cultures of Iron Age Europe as "Celtic" (and the Jastorf material culture as "Germanic"), but this has (thankfully) begun to fall by the wayside lately, because, as should be obvious, the kind of implements or decorations somebody uses does not affect his or her language (or vice versa).

By the fourth century, most of the places in which people spoke Celtic languages had Latin-speaking inhabitants instead, with the only clear exceptions being Galatia (where they spoke Greek), Thrace (also Greek-speaking), and Ireland. It seems that most of the places where Celtic languages are spoken today - Galicia in Spain, Bretagne, Wales, Cornwall, and Scotland - may have got their Celtic language from Ireland in the centuries following the extinction of the Roman Empire in the West.
 
Celts are a ancient European Culture that arose near Hallsatt and spread throughout Europe.
Hallsatt is the first place we can identity signs of Celtic culture. There remains quite a bit of debate as to whether their culture developed there.
 
It seems that most of the places where Celtic languages are spoken today - Galicia in Spain, Bretagne, Wales, Cornwall, and Scotland - may have got their Celtic language from Ireland in the centuries following the extinction of the Roman Empire in the West.
While I'm all for re-imagining the importance of Ireland in reshaping the language of a good chunk of Europe, how did the P-Q division come up in this theory?
 
Probably headed off the inevitable "but dems peeps were spooking Celtic yeah, so they must have been Celts all that time!!!!1"
 
While I'm all for re-imagining the importance of Ireland in reshaping the language of a good chunk of Europe, how did the P-Q division come up in this theory?
I think that, in this version, the division is something like "insular" vs. "continental", though I am clear as mud on the details. /me is obviously not a linguist
 
I think that, in this version, the division is something like "insular" vs. "continental", though I am clear as mud on the details. /me is obviously not a linguist
Well, Celtic must have spread out of Ireland relatively quickly for this model to work. It hits Scotland in the 400s (leaving the Picts out of this) and is spoken in Wales and Brittany by what? At least the 1000s right? If it's coming from the same place, in the same time period shouldn't it be mostly the same thing?
 
Well, Celtic must have spread out of Ireland relatively quickly for this model to work. It hits Scotland in the 400s (leaving the Picts out of this) and is spoken in Wales and Brittany by what? At least the 1000s right? If it's coming from the same place, in the same time period shouldn't it be mostly the same thing?
I'm pretty sure that amount of time is plenty for various dialects to have branched off. :dunno:

I come at this mostly from a late antique Roman-centric angle, and a non-linguistic one at that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom