Recent comments in /f/history

War_Hymn t1_iryjk7s wrote

Reply to comment by ajaxfetish in Has metal ever been used in ancient/medieval fortifications or any equivalent by HDH2506

>It's not like they weren't producing plate armor in the early middle ages because it cost too much. They weren't producing it because they couldn't.

Not really, they could had taken smaller plates and forge welded them together into a larger plate by hand. At the extreme, you have smiths in 5th century India hand forging smaller pieces of iron into a 6 tonne iron pillar (see Iron Pillar of Delhi). But of course, doing it this way cost a premium in labour and fuel.

2

ajaxfetish t1_iryg94v wrote

Reply to comment by War_Hymn in Has metal ever been used in ancient/medieval fortifications or any equivalent by HDH2506

I was replying to this:

> There's a reason run-of-the-mill soldiers used at most chain-mail, because it was easier and cheaper to produce than plate armor

It's not like they weren't producing plate armor in the early middle ages because it cost too much. They weren't producing it because they couldn't. The necessary infrastructure just didn't exist yet. And then once it was developed, the resulting armor ended up becoming more affordable than chainmail. One type of armor requires a certain level of industrialization to build, the other requires lots of skill, patience, and time.

1

Thanatikos t1_iry3iej wrote

Reply to comment by SolomonBlack in Has metal ever been used in ancient/medieval fortifications or any equivalent by HDH2506

I’m sorry, but I think your understanding of the advent of firearms is off by two hundred years or so. A few examples of early use does not constitute evidence that they were widely used or that armor was initially a response to them. Their design and use was limited. Gunpowder was not readily available. Crossbows we’re still the preferred ranged weapon of Conquistadors through most of the 16th century. Gunpowder use prior to the 15th century would have been unreliable and usually uncompetitive with bows unless conditions were ideal. There just isn’t anywhere enough evidence to support your position. From 1000-1400 AD the chances of being killed on a European by a gunpowder weapon versus edged weapons or bows would have been minute.

1

-Elpidio t1_irxde7w wrote

Reply to Historical factors in the 1950s and 60s that made the Cuban revolution and its leaders(Castro and Che) popular in the developing world that I think should be appreciated more. by Anglicanpolitics123

In February 1945, the United States attended a hemispheric conference in Mexico to discuss the “fundamental economic aspiration of the peoples of the Americas” and “their natural right to live decently and work and exchange goods productively in peace and with security.” This is known as the Economic Charter of the Americas.

In preparation for this conference, the U.S. Department of State drafted a memo to the American Ambassador in Mexico, George S. Messersmith outlining the 2 most important parts of the Charter:

Washington, February 5, 1945, 7:00pm:

Following is résumé of Department’s policy with respect to the economic portions of agenda:

…

5. Elimination of excessive economic nationalism in all its forms.

…

8. Adherence to system of private enterprise.

This is basically the reason for all the U.S. interventions in Latin America (and everywhere else for that matter). Please note that these ideas were put forth during World War 2. Japan had yet surrendered!

Let’s now read the internal memos and get a sense of how this policy against “economic nationalism” shaped the actions of the U.S. towards Cuba and the Castro government.

Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State, Washington, September 24, 1959

Subject: Meeting with American Sugar Interests Regarding the Situation of Their Properties in Cuba

Special participant: Sam H. Baggett, V.P., United Fruit Company

Mr. Baggett expressed his pleasure at Mr. Rubottom’s comments. He considers that the agrarian reform in Cuba will have far reaching effects if it should become a pattern for other countries in Latin America*. The low valuation of property and payment in I.O.U.’s,* if it spreads, will force the United Fruit Company out of business. This Cuban attitude posses a serious problem for all investors in Latin America*. He agreed that we should not make a hero of Castro, but observed that he will be one in any case if he gets away with his agrarian reform as it stands.*

A few weeks later...

Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Rubottom) to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Murphy), Washington, October 23, 1959

Subject: Current Basic United States Policy Towards Cuba

Castro’s economic policies, apart from directly affecting adversely the rights of United States investors in Cuba and thus raising additional problems in U.S.-Cuban relations, have a distinctly statist and nationalist orientation which, if also adopted by other Latin American countries, would seriously undermine our economic policies and objectives with respect to the Latin American region*. … there is a continuing danger that other regimes responsive to and/or modeled on the Castro regime may arise elsewhere in the region with serious adverse consequences to our security and interests.*

A few weeks later...

Memorandum of Discussion at the 432d Meeting of the National Security Council, Washington, January 14, 1960

…We ought to oppose quietly any Cuban loan applications which might be made.

Instead of applying economic pressure against Cuba, we could encourage private investors to be cautious about investing elsewhere in Latin America. If the Latin American countries see that Castro is frightening investment away from Latin America, they will not be favorably inclined toward Castro. If the Latin American opinion leaders were told that our investors are waiting to see what happens in Cuba, they might build up an anti-Castro opinion in Latin America*.*

The Vice President [Nixon] believed we should look at Latin America as a single area from an investment point of view, so that anything which hurts investment in one part of Latin American hurts investment throughout the area.

A few weeks later...

Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Rubottom) to the Secretary of State, Washington, March 9, 1960

Subject: NSC Discussion of Cuba

There is no disagreement between the Departments and agencies concerned about our basic approach towards Cuba—that the Castro regime is a threat to our security interests and the achievement of our objectives in Latin America.

But it gets even better!

International terrorism and economic warfare are justified not by what Cuba does, but by its “very existence,” its “successful defiance” of the proper master of the hemisphere.

See the internal records:

March 22, 1960, Special National Intelligence Estimate, Communist Influence in Cuba:

The Communists probably also believe that the US will lose in influence and prestige so long as Castro’s successful defiance of the US (including his acceptance of bloc assistance) continues*, and that the US is faced with the dilemma of tolerating an increasingly Communist-oriented Cuba or of arousing widespread Latin American opposition by intervening.*

February 17, 1961, Paper Prepared in the Central Intelligence Agency, Cuba:

Cuba will, of course, never present a direct military threat to the United States…

For the Communist powers, Cuba represents an opportunity of incalculable value. More importantly, the advent of Castro has provided the Communists with a friendly base for propaganda and agitation throughout the rest of Latin America and with a highly exploitable example of revolutionary achievement and successful defiance of the United States.

February 3, 1964 as quoted by Piero Gleijeses, Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976, (2003)

Perhaps of even grater moment is that the primary danger we face in Castro is not what he does in the way of distributing arms, disseminating propaganda, training subversives, and dispatching agents, but in the impact the very existence of this regime has upon the leftist movement in many Latin American Countries.

The simple fact is that Castro represents a successful defiance of the US, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half. Until Castro did it, no Latin American could be sure of getting away with a communist-type revolution and a tie-in with the Soviet Union. As long as Castro endures, Communists in other Latin American countries can, to use Stalin’s words, ‘struggle with good heart’.

As the famous economist, Joan Robinson wrote in 1967:

It is obvious enough that the United States crusade against Communism is a campaign against development*. By means of it the American people have been lead to acquiesce in the maintenance of a huge war machine and its use* by the threat or actual force to try to suppress every popular movement that aims to overthrow ancient or modern tyranny and begin to find a way to overcome poverty and establish national self-respect*.*

Cheers :-)

4

5tatic55 t1_irx6k3l wrote

Reply to comment by HDH2506 in Has metal ever been used in ancient/medieval fortifications or any equivalent by HDH2506

I believe it was somewhat rare. Most were made up of wood, as metal plates were exceedingly hard to produce in that era, but not impossible..

If you look into "The army that moved a mountain", otherwise know as "The Siege of Masada" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Masada (that's the Wiki), they used the metal plate tactics there, I know there are some good YouTube videos of it too.

1