Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Metatron" channel.

It occurred to me in reading the comments that the CORE AND EDGE (one piece) would logically be high-carbon, with the cheaper, softer, more forgiving veneer welded to it. So the whole outside is the soft stuff, except for the edge, itself. That would protect the core, somewhat, I would think, but you'd still have the high-carbon edge as the only part of the core that's showing. My dunno.
7
@hemelinger7792 You're leaving out the fact that the horses were trained to attack, which is unlike dealing with a plow horse on the farm. I read, recently that Agincourt was less about archery and more about terrain and weather negating the advantage of the knights in close combat.
4
That makes sense. The core AND the edge were the high-carbon steel, and they plastered the more malleable, low-carbon steel over it, to take a beating and add (cheaper) weight to it.
3
Not to my understanding, Shurima. I thought the katana was essentially hand-forged, and not a welded laminate of 2 distinctly different types of steel, as is being described.
3
@Tareltonlives Macedonians faced elephants long before the Romans.
2
@starcraft2own : Horse archers and chariot archers were in use for centuries before they invented the stirrup, making the whole "knights on chargers" thing possible. But that sort of warfare is totally against the natural instincts of a horse. Whoever thought it up and figured out how to train horses for this sort of combat had to be at least a little crazy. But once a horse decides it wants to fight rather than flee, it's pretty bad-ass. Watching good cutting horses in the American West, the idea that the rider is controlling everything and the horse isn't an active participant is ludicrous. Part of what makes the mounted knights so potent is the level of teamwork, and the horse's own two eyes added to the rider's. It's as much about the rider knowing and trusting his mount and going WITH it as it is directing its movements.
2
Later on, yeah.
1
You might be splitting hairs on "in the army," because they made use of barbarians, as needed, for centuries, but not necessarily in Roman formations. Certainly, later, especially in the Eastern Empire, they Romanized and promised lands to Norsemen of the Varangian Guard, for example.
1
For me, all contradictions vanish when you see "right" as authoritarian/totalitarian, with the Roman Empire as an example. One of the reasons all the European kings wanted the blessing of the Church, was because that was the Roman model, and with that model came Divine Right to rule, and absolute power of the King. This "innovation" was "peak right wing." The "left," as I see it, is the rejection of that model, and a belief that power at the top should be as limited as possible, and the power should remain in the hands of individuals. The more say the state apparatus has in your everyday life, the more "right" it is. We've jumbled up the terms, deliberately, I think, so that it's easier for a power-grabber to masquerade as a spokesman/agent for the left, but when you see government intervention as "right" and government non-intervention as "left," you know that any politician who wants the government to intervene to "save everybody" is actually pushing for a return to "right" or "authoritarian" forms. That politician wants to be an aristocrat and for you to be his serf. "Look what I do for you. Do as I tell you."
1
By this measure, Hitler was right wing, but so was Stalin, and so are all socialists. The farthest "left" we ever got was the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution (as amended). But it didn't take long to start chipping away at it (or ignoring it) as it suited those closest to the levers of government power, which were pretty short levers back in the day. "Liberal" or "left" also includes a philosophy of tolerance of others: their ways and their beliefs, so long as their ways or beliefs do not conflict with basic non-force principles. That got conflated with the idea that your individual urge to compassion and care for others meant that government should perform the primary functions of charity. Government - especially federal government - as the primary "care-giver" is where the lefties-in-spirit got it wrong. Charity comes from people, not paid bureaucrats.
1
@ghardrimvoreksson7266 When the "conqueror" takes wives from among the conquered, the conquered culture ends up dominating, with fresh genes provided by the fittest amongst the "conquerors."
1
@admech590 The Saxons were basically like Vikings, only 3 or 4 hundred years earlier. It didn't take long after the Romans pulled out for Hengist to come over the sea to Britain.
1
@cothromgrimr161 Normandy was colonized by North men. The Norse. They converted to Christianity for political reasons. Easier to work with the Pope in Europe than against him, whatever their true beliefs were.. Being an anointed king under Christian law gave much more power over people than "1st among equals" traditions from Norse and Germanic tribal culture. They had to share power with the Pope, but smooth sailing with the Church on their side.
1
Vikings: Be muscular, tilt your head down and look up all the time, like a THOT selfie. It makes you clever and sinister.
1
So we just look for dumb-asses to dunk on? It's easier to ignore them.
1
Ever see a surgeon's kit from 1000 years ago? Brutal? Ever see one from the 21st Century? Brutal.
1
If you see "left" as more people, less government and "right" as more government, less people, then you begin to see that Ron Paul is a genius for his simplicity.
1