History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
Warden123
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 137
The problem about feminism, is that there are so many different types its a rather hard to place word. In Emma Watson's pseudo-famous speech,f or example, she claimed that Feminists don't hate men. That is both true and untrue. She is (as far as I know) correct that the movement of feminism she follows holds such beliefs, but other movements in the feminist current are more radical. There is, however, a growing movement to limit "feminism" to such groups that are anti-men and pro female superiority, and the others to be changed to "Gender Equality" which is more inclusive of the fact that both genders are abused in society. Oddly enough, Ms. Emma Watson doesn't support calling the "feminist" movement "gender equality". In contrast, Women's suffrage, by definition, was the movement that propagated the right for women to vote. it falls under the umbrella of general "feminism."
Your first question, in my opinion, is more subjective. I feel that it is more of a reaction, however, because once suffrage was achieved, women demanded more and more rights, coming to a near equal place in our society.
jackelgull
An aberration of nature
Traders, basically. Then came a series of Muslim sultanates in the 14th century, and finally social movements, but traders were the first missionaries.
Also important to note that Islam came to Indonesia in waves that reflected happenings elsewhere in the Muslim world
traders= early Islamic empire when it was expanding international trade
Muslim sultanates= the entire Muslim world was developing politically strong sultanates around the 14th century. I mean, this was the rise of the ottoman empire. I'm not a hundred percent sure how to solidly connect this with Indonesia, but it's an interesting connection.
social movements: Wahabism and salafism were movements that rocked the Middle East before being exported to Indonesia. Also the opening of the Suez canal opened religious sites to travel by Indonesians, thus strengthening Indonesia's connection with mainstream Islam, for better or for worse.
CaptainLost
Oberleutnant
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but oh well: Would it be plausible or realistic at all to have zebra-mounted warriors in a fictitious world?
jackelgull
An aberration of nature
The short answer: No
The long answer: Zebras are too expensive to train en masse. They have bad tempers and are notoriously difficult to train. So a singular hero might be able to ride a zebra, but it is implausible an entire civilization could ride into battle with one. But considering how little the average person could tell you about the zebra it probably won't matter.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
To add to jackelgull's answer: you can always use the magical powers of Handwavium (tm).
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Presumably any culture using zebras on a large scale would have domesticated rather than simply tamed them, so I wouldn't say it's implausible.
The problem is that zebras can't be domesticated. They're simply too unpredictable.
Now zebra-horse crosses (zorses) can be trained, but they can't be domesticated in any meaningful way because, like mules, they're sterile. And in any case, if you're able to create zorses, you've got horses, so you'd be using them instead anyway.
sophie
Break My Heart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teutonic_Order
Tons. I'm sure there's a Domen megapost incoming in 3...2...1
sophie
Break My Heart
Right. Reading comprehension is important, isn't it?
GreekAnalyzer
Back from the Dead
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,936
I suppose it's nice.
Question: What was cavalry used for in mod-19th century Europe other than reconnaissance? Were they used for charges/flanking?
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Somebody else will have to talk more specifically about Europe. I can comment on the United States (Civil War) where the answer is that it did happen sometimes, but it was probably less common that, say, the Napoleonic era. But the Indian Wars against plains tribes used cavalry far more often (although they might have dismounted).
I do think it's worth keeping in mind what wars we're talking about in mid-19th Century Europe. If the terrain wasn't suited for that kind of warfare, it wouldn't have been likely to be used, but that doesn't mean it wasn't still a tactic they used under the right circumstances. For example, Italian wars of independence or fighting over Schleswig might be less likely than Russia vs. Poland where there's lots of open space. On the other hand, whether Russia is the best example of modern military tactics would be an open question.
I do think it's worth keeping in mind what wars we're talking about in mid-19th Century Europe. If the terrain wasn't suited for that kind of warfare, it wouldn't have been likely to be used, but that doesn't mean it wasn't still a tactic they used under the right circumstances. For example, Italian wars of independence or fighting over Schleswig might be less likely than Russia vs. Poland where there's lots of open space. On the other hand, whether Russia is the best example of modern military tactics would be an open question.
Calvary scouted, raided rear areas, broke through and got behind enemy units to harass them, flank them, hit supply lines, capture strategic points, cut enemy communications, all sorts of things. An army on the march was a vulnerable thing. Cavalry could do a lot of damage to it. Prior to WWI, cavalry remained a mainstay of military thought and planning. Only the fact that horses can't survive in a machine gun and artillery environment changed that.
GreekAnalyzer
Back from the Dead
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,936
Both of your answers were sufficiently informative, thanks for the help!
Similar threads
