Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Metatron" channel.

  1. Well, modern tanks are not slow. Plenty of early tanks (especially heavy tanks) were, hence the expression.
    114
  2. Unironically, I wouldn't complain about a history/comparison of pasta dishes before tomato sauces came to dominate.
    110
  3.  @magister.mortran  depends, causing an enemy war elephant to go panicking through their own lines by the use of ranged weapons and pointy sticks of our own doesn't sound so bad.
    81
  4. Phesheya Bhembe actually, while it stops them from going too long, it can actually keep them from being too short (like a lot of modern sports fighting) too because there's so little margin for error and no respawns. Here are some people that work on teaching early middle-ages martial arts talking about this https://youtu.be/7vqte0QbXnc
    54
  5. ShieldWife probably true on average, but hardships like poor nutrition and disease did often leave people less than they could have been and there are still plenty of people that lead physically and mentally demanding lives even today, so I'd say there's certainly a fair amount of overlap.
    51
  6. Complex language requires being able to encode information into a sensory medium with a high "bandwidth" and keeping that information in a specific order. Due to the way smells work, this makes a poor medium for this. Despite what hive insects like bees are able to achieve with it, they're limited to a specific set of information they can communicate. They do, however, make decent mediums for information sets that change on evolutionary timescales, such as emotions. Visual might seem like a good way to go, but it tends to be expensive (bio-luminescence or lots of movement) and often ties up important body parts when it's even capable of being fast enough. It will most likely be a 2ndary channel for information, much like how we use body language, but it's limitations get in the way of evolving as a primary medium for complex language. (though, unlike smell, it is possible, as we can see with sign language) Really, auditory, especially vocal, is the way to go, and convergent evolution will drive species towards it. That said, auditory ranges being incompatible could be a trial to overcome, though not insurmountable with some very basic technology. The big questions are: How does one attempt to teach one's own language to an alien? (they'll likely be trying to do the same with us anyway) How does one comprehend an alien mind? Think about taking a magic universal translator and sticking a hunter from the stone age, smith from 700AD England, noble from 1700AD France, farmer from 2000AD Congo, tax collector from 1300AD China, warrior from 1000BC Greece, fisher from 900AD Mexico slave from 100BC Rome, priest from 2000BC Egypt, monk from 1500AD Japan, and yourself in a room and try to have everyone just get along. Now realize that this is just the tutorial level because you're all the same species (using the same brains), from the same planet, all from within a few thousand years of each other, and most of you have some knowledge of at least 1 or 2 of the others. Now remove those advantages, have several billion voices clamoring behind them, arm everyone, and try to negotiate and cooperate without killing each other.
    39
  7. I no longer have the source, but I remember reading that the late Roman cataphracts used their long-hafted maces to strike spear shafts, further opening up a path for the wedge to basically just trot unstoppingly over any infantry unit in front of it. (And of course we can infer that even if you survived a mace-blow to the head due to your helmet, if you were knocked over or significantly stunned, it meant almost death by trampling) On top of that, the empire was already incorporating archers into their infantry formations to great effect: warbows at close range shooting at distracted infantry who needed to worry about not opening their guard to the infantry in front of them protecting said archers (to say nothing about the potential of targeting anyone who spoke up to give orders) We can assume the mixed archers in the cataphract units served a similar purpose while also providing some way to retaliate against ranged attackers. Knights may have been shock troops, but cataphracts are a juggernaut you can send right through enemy lines toward the enemy's commanders. I'll take the one not hard countered by a disciplined pike block any day.
    36
  8. Even supposing that all his videos get re-monitized after some period (which as Samuel points out, hasn't always happened), it's still a terrible system, since most of a video's views happen within roughly a week if I understand, and if you're demonetized during that week, it means you basically make no money on it.
    28
  9. Why? Because he's competition for shows like "Deadliest Warrior". Experimental archeology like this has been on TV for YEARS and no-one had a problem with it. This whole Adpocalypse started with advertisers wanting to get control of the political narrative back in their hands by the influence their ad dollars have over news media and old news media in a downward spiral as they lost all semblance of credibility and people migrated elsewhere to get their news. The media companies are huge conglomerates that do more than news, however, and quickly realized that their other content was loosing viewers to the internet and further pressured youtube to clear out competing content so they could move in and get more eyes on their content and more ad dollars in their pockets. This is just the next step. Expect to see more.
    25
  10. Side note from my experience with even just online games: being the only disciplined member of your team is a very reliable way to end up dead, especially if you're on the front lines. Not a 1-to-1 analogue there, of course, but food for thought.
    20
  11. oscar romario florez camargo civil wars could be considered carrying on the Roman tradition lol
    17
  12.  @padalan2504  you forgot "composite"
    16
  13. Yeah, the average has probably shifted (especally here in the US), but there is still a lot of overlap room for fit people today to outclass plenty of historical examples. That which doesn't kill you doesn't always make you stronger, and malnutrition is a huge example of that.
    15
  14. While an average male's advantages in size and reach are certainly significant, I'd like to reemphasize the importance of skill and training. I'd put my money on a female master of almost any serious martial art against almost any newbie in said art. You can find similar differences in size and strength between men practicing martial arts and while there is certainly an advantage to be had in those traits, the guy that's a 6'6" wall of muscle can be taken out by a well-trained person who's significantly smaller if the smaller fighter possesses significantly greater skill. Sure, women in war wasn't the norm for several reasons, but let's be careful not to overstate things.
    14
  15. I'd like to add 2 things: 1-Most knights didn't have castles and couldn't afford them. Most knights just has a manor house and the surrounding farmland. They would absolutely not be wearing the best kit off of just that. 2-Income disparity is a lot larger today than most people realize. The top 8 people have more wealth than the bottom half of the world combined dispite a much higher population today. Which is worse kinda depends on how you compare wealth. Given the way the economy worked, I think it's generally better to think about how many skilled manhours went into making a set or armor. If anyone has good numbers on that, please share and your source if you can.
    13
  16. I had to debate (well. thoroughly trash with citations really) someone in the comments who thought it was a good video -.- Glad to see a video helping debunk this nonsense though
    12
  17. It's not a perfect simulation by any means, but the tabletop rpg "Savage Worlds" handles wounds and the feel of combat better than many games I've played (especally for not focusing on accuracy as a primary goal). Numbers would need to be tweaked to be less pulp action, but it is nice to at least not have an HP system. Idk about computer games though
    12
  18. It depends on what you're trying to defend against. Remember that one of the main things that influenced European armor design was the presence of the lance (which far outclasses the penetrative power of anything on the battlefield short of guns and siege weapons) Also, more mass on the head can help protect from concussions (or alternatively the lighter weight could allow for a wider helmet with more room for give when struck). I'd probably take more weight on the front torso and helmet and keep the limbs light but it could depend as it's always a tradeoff.
    12
  19. The Byzantine army was an amazing engine of war with one serious flaw; it relied heavily on the skill of its commanders to bring out its potential more than just about any other other army fielded at the time, effectively trading consistency of performance for maximizing potential performance under great leadership. The result was an army that was notoriously inconsistent in how well it performed when leadership changed hands. The leadership problems are even evident in the manuals (of which I think the fact thar there are multiple is significant) with, for example, how often one of them repeats "do not pursue Bedouin (read light) cavalry" such that you can tell that people being baited into pursuing such forces and breaking formation/running into ambushes was an ongoing problem. I would argue against the idea that they were less well equipped than the Romans is flawed. The Byzantine army just allocated its resources differently. So again, it comes down to the generals.
    12
  20. +goran77ish Your assessment is correct. The skill level you're seeing is lower than the majority of people I've seen before they get any training. The only ones that are worse are those that fight by trying to imitate bad anime & game techniques. I'm not qualified to be any kind of professional teacher on this and I could have pretty much any able-bodied person able to beat him 9/10 matches in under an hour of instruction.
    11
  21. I don't know the specifics of how it functions, but YouTube absolutely has a blacklist. I know of a channel that found out they were on a blacklist when their income dropped to literal cents (down from a professional income) and the had a friend saying they were trying to advertise on their channel specifically and were being prevented from doing so. They were eventually removed from the blacklist, and it may have changed overtime (since they were hit very hard, very early in the adpocolypse), but it absolutely exists. (channel was Secular Talk, for those that want to do research, though the specific channel is irrelevant for this specific)
    11
  22. Are you sure he wouldn't hurt himself? Bad techniques asside, with as uncomfortable with and afraid of his sword he looks, that isn't unlikely.
    10
  23. RyuFireheart I was already red-pilled. Now the only choice is seeing how far the rabbit hole goes
    10
  24. WarblesOnALot actually, that's (sadly) only the cover story. The reality is that old news media (who was feeling the heat of competition from YouTube news channels who weren't bought off) scoured the site to find one hateful video that had an ad on it which slipped through YouTube's previously existing filter system and jumped on it to try and get YouTube to crack down on content. A selection of large companies (such as Walmart and several predatory banks) joined in step immediately to boycott YouTube. Their motivation is that they were used to their advertising dollars buying bias, and the rise of people turning outside of TV news with said bias was leading to a wave of public opinion that threatens their goals. To give a couple specifics, Walmart really likes their suppliers to outsource their products, so they were hugely in favor of the planned TPP trade deal. While Trump may have latched onto it in his campaign, the original push-back against it came from the internet latching onto something that was supposed to happen quietly and spreading around how terrible it was. The banks, on the other hand, have had a nice long streak from Bill Clinton, to Bush, to Obama, to Hillary/Trump of presidents that would happily play ball and let them continue to screw over people more. Then Bernie (who's campaign was largely driven by the grass roots on the internet) came along and threatened that con-game and they were NOT happy about that. Of course, the mainstream media instantly piled on this, because of their ever shrinking credibly and viewer base. Meanwhile, youtube works with them to roll out TV news channels, and eventually "youtube tv" shortly thereafter (at a time-period which suggests they started this plan immediately after the first corporations started the boycott). To top things off, the same "news" corporations are really just huge media conglomerates who make money on non-news content, and so are perfectly happy to see other good content get hit, even if it's not political. To give an example relevant to this channel (beyond just time spent watching youtube competes with time watching TV), General Electric may have gotten into the game because of MSNBC (which they own) but, among other companies they hold, they also own The "History" channel, which is directly threatened by channels like this that make actually historically accurate content that people want to watch (& for far lower production costs than their BS shows). I could give more specifics if you want, but this is wall of text already long enough.
    10
  25. Rogue Gen the thickness of the plates is so thin that doubling it is inconsequential. Most of the bulkiness of armor comes from the gambison (and possibly mail) under it. Even for the fine articulations of gauntlets, increasing the thickness isn't a problem and reenactors do it all the time to make safer steel sparing gauntlets. The absolute thickest part of thicker plates generally tops out at about 14 guage (0.0747in / 1.90mm) but that would only be for specific points on the helm and breastplate with much or the armor significantly thinner.
    8
  26. Unnamed object Ingredients: Hydrogen, time
    8
  27. It seems to me the obvious answer would be "depends on the contex-I mean harness" Idk why we'd assume a binary answer here.
    7
  28.  @draconisthewyvern3664  which is also 1 yard. Seriously, being able to visualize 1m as about 1 yard (which you probably ran into as a yardstick in school in the US) is really useful if you're wanting to get an idea of instead of doing precise measurements.
    7
  29. Liberal and Conservative channels were both targeted at the start of this. TYT was likely spared just because YouTube feared their size (or they've already sold out. Haven't watched them in long enough to say). The real reason is corporatism. Advertisers want their ad dollars to buy influence over the news again and TV channel conglomerates want to clear out their competition. These channels we watch compete with the "History" channel and specifically shows like "Deadliest Warrior". This is how companies act when they have the power to seriously influence the market on a large enough scale.
    7
  30. *claps*
    7
  31. Corporate market fixing. YouTube is working with TV media conglomerates to clear out content that competes with theirs. This whole adpocolypse thing started with media conglomerates and huge corporations getting together to force YouTube to serve there interests above all others, and YouTube seems quite happy to go along with this BS plan.
    7
  32. "Zoom in there...enhance" Repeat 'nuff said
    6
  33. Flintlock? Probably would go through, I'm guessing, but those are fairly late period as far as black powder weapons go. Earlier weapons would have trouble, however. What we think of as conquistador armor was designed to deflect firearms with its pronounced centerline to present a glancing surface and its increased thickness (at the cost of limb armor). Eventually though, guns got too powerful to wear thick enough armor to realistically defend against untill modern ballistic armor.
    6
  34. Short answer: Armor? Yes. Weapons? No, you want the mass to help you do damage.
    6
  35. Best defense is not being there when the blow comes through, so you're not exactly wrong.
    6
  36. +Harith Azmi Like Xiren Seo said, it depends on the type of tank. Compare the Matilda1's 8 mph (12.87 km/h) (only 5.6 mph (9 km/h) when offroad) A13 Mk III Covenanter's 30 mph (48 km/h). Both were British tanks in service during 1940.
    5
  37. Well, you could always split the difference and get a stronger armor at 75% of the weight.
    5
  38. You want the real reasons, or their cover story, because those are very different answers. The real reason is that the historical YouTube channels we watch kick the pants off of the History Channel, and the huge media conglomerates (like the one that own that) want to turn YouTube into cable TV 2.0
    5
  39. They just don't give a shit, sadly.
    5
  40. As Timur mentioned, we know because we can see it in their bones from evidence of disease to stunted growth. Fact is that, for all the flaws of the modern diet, most of us eat far, far better than people in medieval times. This whole thing where we have generations that don't understand what it means for there to not be enough food to go around and it to be totally out of anyone's control dispite their best efforts is remarkably new. On a good year, sure, great food, but between frequent bad years and a lack of understanding of nutrition, consistently maintaining that good diet long enough to reach the full potential of your adult peak would be difficult. Is it overblown in a lot of depictions? Absolutely, but yes, they were generally sub-optimally fed.
    5
  41. Yes please! The nagamaki is my favorite Japanese weapon and there's not that much out there about it.
    4
  42. Comical Hexical I'm not even talking about no training (even though a lot of battlefields contained a bunch of conscripts with very minimal training), but even solidly proficient fighters can be taken out by more experience dispite differences in body. Even when I was younger and actually in practice (with martial arts dealing with medieval weapons no less), there were women and old men who could kick my ass dispite my training for years, and plenty of other guys over 6" taller and 50lbs of muscle heavier than me who I could take down (especially if we were fighting with my preferred weapon). Sure, the form and style matter (there's a reason female samurai were trained in naginata, jujutsu, and daggers as opposed to something like the tetsubo) but most weapons have some degree of an equalizing effect as they shift combat more toward skill as opposed to just physical capability. 2 people in plate bashing each other with warhammers is very much about size and strength, but things like spear (even reasonably armored) and rapier are much less so and can have a much wider range of body types do well with them, even if there are physical characteristics which are advantageous, because a lot of their use is in positioning and the mental game.
    4
  43. totheark fanMOFOS here's some excellent teachers talking about exactly that subject https://youtu.be/7vqte0QbXnc
    4
  44.  @wolfremus2521  and how did that work out for them?
    4
  45. Could be aluminum
    4
  46.  @AnthonyRizzuti  being someone who prefers quality olive oil and some herbs atop my pasta, I'm aware that the red sause thing is disproportionately a US thing, but it still leaves me curious about the history and other things it may have displaced.
    4
  47. It seems to me the obvious answer would be "depends on the contex-I mean harness" Idk why we'd assume a binary answer here.
    4
  48. I see only one issue with your otherwise completely sound theory. If the shields are being held as 6:22 then how don't all the undead have broken wrists from the first time someone hit the shield?
    4
  49. Seven Proxies my point was that in the field of seduction-based reconnaissance you would assign tasks based on gender due to preferences of the target. Also, if you're dealing with sexist opponents, it helps to use those baises against them.
    4
  50. +Havoc Blitzkrieg No, that's a perfectly sound strategy. The infantry tanks were designed to stick with the infantry and protect them from heavy armor. They were also the ones supposed to clear the heavy tanks of the enemy from an area and start the punch-through of an enemy line, assisted by the infantry (who would provide the extra machine-gun fire). Since this job didn't require much mobility, they could also afford heavier guns and armor using the same engine, which left most of them at a pretty slow 15mph. Cruiser tanks were then supposed to rush through the hole they created and destroy the relatively soft and squishy rear lines, cutting off logistic support to the main line. For that kind of job, a smaller gun with a higher rate of fire is better. They also save weight on the gun (and the armor) which helps add to their speed. Of course, since they're now moving way too fast for the infantry to keep up with, throwing an extra machine gun or 2 on them makes a lot of sense. Also, once they switched over to the 6lber gun, they were more than capable of taking out medium tanks they were put up against, and could take out heavy tanks as long as they weren't facing them head on. It's not the best anti-tank gun, but it's fit for purpose and slower reload times on larger guns can easily be fatal with light armor.
    3
  51. +Lady Potatas What kind of weapons are you using that the core can punch through like that?
    3
  52. +Lady Potatas Ah, so it's the fold-over that makes the sharp point? I suppose it would make sense why that wouldn't be an issue with SCA combat as that's not really going to happen the same with tubes >1" that are used there.
    3
  53. +Cavouku the rhomphaia is a Roman derivation of the ancient falx (particularly the 2-handed variety) that the Byzantines carried over into the middle ages. It wasn't one of their main weapons, so there isn't as much evidence of it compared to their swords and spears, but I haven't seen anything to make me question it's use (at least in the skirmishing units) in the early period. That said, by the high middle ages, I expect it had fallen out of use (though that's speculation on my part).
    3
  54. +hmpeter SCA, while US originated, is international, having groups in many countries (US, Canada, Australia, Japan, most of Europe, and others). The fighting is largely using rattan (basically solid bamboo) though also using fiberglass shafts for spears, though there are steel weapons (blunt of course) used for fencing, and boffer weapons (not unlike many larp groups) used in the youth program. All 3 sections have both weapons and armor inspections (yes, armor is required for safety reasons). As a side note, less than a decade ago, the youth program switched from PVC core weapons to shaved-rattan core weapons over safety concerns (despite no actual injuries I'm aware of). Rattan doesn't break into sharp points like other woods, instead breaking into a bunch of flexible fibers. I'm not involved in the SCA any longer, but other than the slightly increased cost and decreased availability of this material (pvc is cheap and abundant afterall) there has been no issues with this core material what-so-ever. Actually, most weapons I've seen made from it are even lighter than those made with schedule 40 PVC.
    3
  55. Tom Franklin I'm well aware of the weight of rapiers and other swords from first hand experience. They weigh about as much as an arming sword, and many of the stances can be tiring to hold for extended periods of time. It doesn't change the fact that the range of body types that can do well with the weapon is fairly wide. I also acknowledged that women being trained for war wasn't the norm for several reasons, and the one you mention is a big one, but there are people out there saying that an average man should be able to beat a woman of basically any skill level. That is the argument I was refuting as I cautioned not to overstate things. I'm not trying to say that one wouldn't normally put the resources into training large men first, but it did occasionally happen, and the women weren't automatically useless in a fight. Nothing more, nothing less.
    3
  56. In other words, it boosts aggro?
    3
  57. (Not that I disagree at all with any of that but) To me, a sword is the most balanced and flexible weapon. You can use a sword as well in offense or defense, and in war or civilian conflicts. It is great against unarmored targets, as well as being able to be used against armored targets. All other arms have much more limited styles and usages based on their traits, but the sword, through balance and the wide range of things you can do with it, leaves how it's used almost entirely up to the one holding it. At the same time each good sword I've ever held has ways it "wants" to move due to nuances in its balance and inertia in different dirrections. This can even make the idea of a sword having a will seem almost reasonable if one sets aside their sensibilities. To top it off, look at when swords were used. They were used in civilian contexts when violent conflict was not expected. They were also used in military contexts when lines were broken and people had to fall back on sidearms to save the day. Times like those are when heroes are born.
    3
  58. Too broad. Would need to narrow by culture and time period to even do a generalization (& to make it worse, most of Europe didn't have formal written war doctrine) Interesting subject, but would be hard to cover as even a single college course
    3
  59. Agree to disagree there, but it's much more Roman.
    3
  60. Wait, armored rapier duels? Was that even a thing? (Legit question, there were some wierd dueling customs, so I can't rule it out, but that strikes me as very weird at best)
    3
  61. Metatron, I love your analysis but (like many others) you skipped one very important detail: farming. A medieval society is mostly farming supporting a tiny percentage of the population living in cities, and that farming needs to continue to keep the cities fed, so the entire population (even most of the population) can't hold up behind city walls without running out of provisions.
    3
  62. +ColdNapalm42 Honestly, I have trouble believing he has any martial arts training, and idea that he has any weapons-based training just makes my head hurt. He's just too awkward in his movements. This looks more like something he saw a bad tutorial of online the day before filming this and then made a mess of trying to teach made up techniques. I know some "dojo" are utter BS and I might be a bit naive on them, but it's hard to imagine someone coming out of any school THIS bad!
    2
  63. +Riceball01 Exactly, and it's pretty easy to guess which type of tanks more people had more exposure to. Also, within WW2, tanks would likely be being compared to other vehicles, not infantry when calling them slow. Compared to the utility vehicles (trucks, jeeps, and motorcycles) and armored cars (APCs, self-propelled artillery, & self propelled anti-air) which generally could move at 35-75mph(56-121km/h), with most at about 50mph(80km/h), the 8-16mph (13-26km/h) (on road & significantly slower off road, where they spent more time) top speeds of infantry tanks are quite slow. The fact that larger objects moving at a distance appear to be moving slower than they are only amplifies this effect. Combine this with the fact that even the heavier of the "armored" cars were only resistant to mid-caliber machine gun fire, but were basically made of tin-foil when confronted with even a 20mm autocannon (which are the smallest thing that can be called a cannon, were small enough that they functioned basically like a heavy machine gun, and were a small fraction of the size of most small tank cannons) and things start to come into perspective. Put in context (either WW1 or WW2) tanks as slow, but hard to destroy makes total sense, even if it doesn't apply to modern tanks or even the faster tanks of WW2.
    2
  64. +KorKhan89 Well, that and how firearms do make that kind of amassing of power easier and faster since they take less training than the bow.
    2
  65. Charlie Albright Musashi op, needs nerfed
    2
  66. Spring steel is referring to carbon steel of a particular range of carbon content and a heat-treating process that makes it spring back to shape rather than staying bent.
    2
  67. +Drakkar Calethiel That's odd. SCA heavy fighting used fiberglass shafts for spears because they break into fibers rather than sharp points when they break (though unlike broken rattan swords, I haven't personally seen this). They use a simple PVC cap to keep the blunt edge of the pipe from pushing into the foam head, but it's pretty simple construction. Is this kind of thing only an issue with the really narrow fiberglass cores?
    2
  68. Yes, and then they can ride off, get a new one, and do it again.
    2
  69. Perhaps more important than the styles for the novel is the headspace of the characters. While it wouldn't hurt to at least learn what the common Hollywood myths about what swordfights look like, I recommend you watch this too. https://youtu.be/7vqte0QbXnc
    2
  70. Early plate armor still often used a shield, but this period saw the shield shrink from a large kite shield, to a smaller and smaller (& thicker and stronger) heater shield. This was only really needed to help protect from lances and to cover the face (should it be exposed) and weaker parts of the torso from arrow fire. As armor improved, even this was largely phased out to give full use of the left hand. Of course, the shield remained for less well equipped soldiers until the pike and shot era (and if you count the buckler, long after that)
    2
  71. Can we stop fighting each other for 2 seconds to deal with the actual threat. This isn't coming from one "side". Left wing news outlets were some of the first hit, right with the right wing ones. I should know, as I watch both liberal news channels as well as some other channels the regressive "left" would find objectionable. All the PC bs is just a cover. The reality is that old news media (who was feeling the heat of competition from YouTube news channels who weren't bought off) scoured the site to find one hateful video that had an ad on it which slipped through YouTube's previously existing filter system and jumped on it to try and get YouTube to crack down on content. A selection of large companies (such as Walmart and several predatory banks) joined in step immediately to boycott YouTube. Their motivation is that they were used to their advertising dollars buying bias, and the rise of people turning outside of TV news with said bias was leading to a wave of public opinion that threatens their goals. To give a couple specifics, Walmart really likes their suppliers to outsource their products, so they were hugely in favor of the planned TPP trade deal. While Trump may have latched onto it in his campaign, the original push-back against it came from the internet latching onto something that was supposed to happen quietly and spreading around how terrible it was. The banks, on the other hand, have had a nice long streak from Bill Clinton, to Bush, to Obama, to Hillary/Trump of presidents that would happily play ball and let them continue to screw over people more. Then Bernie (who's campaign was largely driven by the grass roots on the internet) came along and threatened that con-game and they were NOT happy about that. Of course, the mainstream media instantly piled on this, because of their ever shrinking credibly and viewer base. Meanwhile, YouTube works with them to roll out TV news channels, and eventually "YouTube TV" shortly thereafter (at a time-period which suggests they started this plan immediately after the first corporations started the boycott). To top things off, the same "news" corporations are really just huge media conglomerates who make money on non-news content, and so are perfectly happy to see other good content get hit, even if it's not political. To give an example relevant to this channel (beyond just time spent watching YouTube competes with time watching TV), General Electric may have gotten into the game because of MSNBC (which they own) but, among other companies they hold, they also own The "History" channel, which is directly threatened by channels like this that make actually historically accurate content that people want to watch (& for far lower production costs than their BS shows). I could give more specifics if you want, but this is wall of text already long enough.
    2
  72. I hear you, but counterpoint. If you have that kind of money, your preferred weapon choice is probably "army".
    2
  73. Ignoring that it would be likely to be cut through and/or fly off, what would be the point?
    2
  74. Totally a spear guy myself, and they had the best, longest run of any weapon type in history...but... To me, a sword is the most balanced and flexible weapon. You can use a sword as well in offense or defense, and in war or civilian conflicts. It is great against unarmored targets, as well as being able to be used against armored targets. All other arms have much more limited styles and usages based on their traits, but the sword, through balance and the wide range of things you can do with it, leaves how it's used almost entirely up to the one holding it. At the same time each good sword I've ever held has ways it "wants" to move due to nuances in its balance and inertia in different dirrections. This can even make the idea of a sword having a will seem almost reasonable if one sets aside their sensibilities. To top it off, look at when swords were used. They were used in civilian contexts when violent conflict was not expected. They were also used in military contexts when lines were broken and people had to fall back on sidearms to save the day. Times like those are when heroes are born.
    2
  75. TheRyujinLP the thickness achievable with any sane amount or weight for even titanium is not an issue. You need to get into materials like fabric or paper armor before that starts to become an issue.
    2
  76. Gabriel Drake on a battlefield, that can varry WIDELY. Sometimes the goal is to kill your opponent as quickly as possible. Other times, it's about buying time while holding your opponent's attention. That said 1v1 isn't the norm on a battlefield.
    2
  77. ....and now I'm just realizing that re-uh-ter-ate makes more sense for "to say again" (with "utter" as a root word), whereas linguistically, re-ih-ter-ate makes more sense as "to go through the process again" or to put it more simply "to do over" (with "iterate" as the root), but we never say "reiterate" to mean anything but respeaking our words. ...English is wierd!
    2
  78.  @franohmsford7548  required precision is determined by the acceptable margin for error. 1 yard being almost equal to 1 meter is acceptable for most situations where you're just doing a quick eyeball measurement of scale. Most people cannot eyeball multiples of 1yard+3inches intuitively, making it, while more accurate, less useful in a not insignificant number of situations. Of course, trade speed for precision in your measurements as the situation calls for.
    2
  79. Marc Grundfest you're either trolling or know very little about history. Either way, please be quiet. You're making us look bad.
    2
  80. I think a lot of people severely underestimate how far you can get with just a basic amount of training in a battle and greatly overestimate how much the kind of skill that helps you win 1v1 fights that takes so long to master matters on a battlefield. You can get people to a respectable proficiency level in probably about a week. After some basic strikes and stances and teamwork drills, it's mostly just combat experience, physical condition, and morale that matters. All else being equal, I'd bet on the force that traines for 7 days and experienced several battles to the one that trained for several years and has seen zero battles. Most of the time in unit-scale combat you're doing very basic atracks with your weapon while trying to maintain situational awareness.
    2
  81. Scholagladitoria on the subject. https://youtu.be/meln41VHxqs
    2
  82. Scholagladitoria on sword costs: https://youtu.be/dy1fcRG0A3g
    2
  83. If you can afford plate armor, a plain but solid and functional sword is not particularly expensive. As for use against armor, once you move away from viking age blade heavy swords, you move into swords suited for half-swording and reversing to use the hilt as a striking & grappling/hooking tool (& once someone's on the ground, they're done, either by a friend with a heavy weapon, or a well placed dagger). If you have enough armor to use it 2-handed, you effectively have a 2(or even 3)-in-1 weapon depending on how you're holding it. ...& who cares if you break your sword by chance? Your life's worth more and so is the gear/ransom of the guy you just brought down, and for the short term, there's bound to be weapons lying around a battlefield (including whatever your opponent was just using) (Side note: contrary to popular belief, falchions were not blade heavy weapons. Shadversity has a great series on them you should check out if you haven't seen it)
    2
  84. Even if you avoid the plates, the weight is still useful at striking mail, and the added thickness makes it good for thrusting too.
    2
  85. Franz Perez I'm just saying that even just in class disparities, the reality is a lot harder to put in simple terms of one being obviously worse than the other. The only things that are really easy to say is that social mobility was terrible and that the middle class was tiny. Even just in terms of wealth, how much merchant or exceptionally well off artisan (such as the leader of a guild, or an exceptionally talented smith) might make may beat out some of the poorer landed knights (which were the absolute lowest rung of landed nobility). All of this though, as with most things in the middle ages, varried across time and location making sweeping generalizations even harder.
    2
  86. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma I tend to agree that its use is more often a good thing than a problem, and people tend to pick one style and stick with it.
    1
  87. Wow, at that point they'd be better off just finding a local larp!
    1
  88. +xxFalconArasxx I never said there weren't fast tanks. I even commented quite early in the discussion about an early-WW2 tank with a 48kph tank in operation at the same time as a <13kph tank by the same country. My point was that the class of tanks the infantry spent more time around (appropriately named "infantry tanks") actually were quite slow (~25kph on road being normal) compared to other vehicles they would be dealing with regularly. Even comparing the 46kph of the heavy tank you mention to the 80kph norm of most other military vehicles makes that a pretty slow combat vehicle. To make things appear even slower, most tanks, when close to infantry, are not usually going to be going at top speed, but rather creeping along at a much slower speed than they're capable of for quite a few reasons (which are interesting, but would make this post too long), and really only opening up their throttle when on open ground (or roads) and away from infantry. This is both why tanks=slow makes sense even with faster tanks in existence (since perception of what a tank is like will be based on exposure) and this entire line of argument other people besides you have been going in circles over about tanks vs infantry speed is entirely irrelevant.
    1
  89. +Afnan Zahran Yes, that is part of what I've been saying. I even specifically mentioned "infantry tanks".
    1
  90. What do you think about using "shaped" or "formed" as a translation instead of "created", "modified", or "organized"?
    1
  91. Yah, much of the heaviest, multi-layer armor from the middle ages was driven by weapons that weren't a concern for the Romans. The advancements in saddle and stirrup design (and even the lance rest) that turned the couched lance charge into the insanely powerful thing it ended up being weren't around. The amount of armor that knights needed to deal with the insane impact forces that late period charges could produce when they met head on is very different that what you'd need in infantry fights (especially before things like poleaxes)
    1
  92. You could use it that way, but spears tend to be longer, lighter, and use the smoother shafts to allow the leading hand to slide along the shaft durring use. The stiff blade of a katana makes for a fairly good thrusting weapon, offsetting the curve in the blade with the main problem in thrusting for the weapon being it's broad tip, but if you're not thrusting into mail, that's not that big a problem. Since the nagamaki uses the same blade as a katana, that should hold true for it as well. It's just that it won't be as easy to use as a thrusting weapon or able to fill the same formation roll as a spear.
    1
  93. Chicago doesn't even count as an example since everyone can just drive a bit out of town, buy one, and drive back. They don't even have to leave the state.
    1
  94. The reason crossbows have a reputation as more powerful and longbows have better range comes down to physics. Specifically ke=mv^2 and air resistance being proportional to velocity. Heavy crossbows can be, and often were, made heavier than any person can physically draw, and so bolts can have a higher kinetic energy off the string than an arrow. However, since they have a light projectile, more of that energy is in velocity and so their bolts will loose that energy much faster than a longbow's arrow. A high arc makes this difference even stronger, obviously, but it's actually the difference in projectile weight that creates it.
    1
  95. Notice that in 2/3rd of the clips it's actually the person with the gun that closes the distance into disarm range for no apparent reason.
    1
  96. Incorrect. Carbon wasn't folded into the iron. Once they smelted the ore, they would smash the bloom and seperate the fragments by carbon content introduced during the smelting process. The folding process (while very good at homogenizing impurities to strengthen the metal by removing fracture points) actually burns off some of the carbon, so swordsmiths would use very high carbon steel to then work down into a less brittle carbon level. I believe the Shadversity channel has a pretty good video on katana metalurgy if you want more detail.
    1
  97. Judging by frequency if historical use: Maces are Far more effective weapons than flails. There are some interesting things about flails, but the control and speed you loose is an immense downside for practical use that's too hard to offset.
    1
  98. +hmpeter liability risk to inspect weapons? Huh? Sorry, but no, you need to do weapon inspections. I'm not a lawyer, but I know the SCA requires them, despite having larger events and there being lawyers going over the rules of the SCA. If you're doing it in a way that creates a liability risk, you're doing it wrong.
    1
  99. -Aegon Targarian
    1
  100. Idk, museums tend to have more artifacts than they have on display. Prioritizing aquiring more things than you can display over information for the things you have on display is really debatable.
    1
  101. MrDUneven significantly reduced usefulness for everything else for a slightly reduced risk at doing a move you might not be able to pull off (and even then, would likely make it harder to keep hold of)
    1
  102. Even just in the specific context of grappling in a brawl, I'd much rather have my opponent grab my hair than, for example, my leg or my shirt. (Getting that pulled up over your face is no joke in a fight)
    1
  103. I will say that Imperial makes a lot more sense if you're a peasant and not using a base 10 system...not that that has much baring on the modern world.
    1
  104. Is there a link by chance?
    1
  105. Michael Berthelsen fair enough
    1
  106. To me, a sword is the most balanced and flexible weapon. You can use a sword as well in offense or defense, and in war or civilian conflicts. It is great against unarmored targets, as well as being able to be used against armored targets. All other arms have much more limited styles and usages based on their traits, but the sword, through balance and the wide range of things you can do with it, leaves how it's used almost entirely up to the one holding it. At the same time each good sword I've ever held has ways it "wants" to move due to nuances in its balance and inertia in different dirrections. This can even make the idea of a sword having a will seem almost reasonable if one sets aside their sensibilities. To top it off, look at when swords were used. They were used in civilian contexts when violent conflict was not expected. They were also used in military contexts when lines were broken and people had to fall back on sidearms to save the day. Times like those are when heroes are born.
    1
  107. Neutral Fellow most sieges did not end with storming the fortifications, though. That was a tiny minority. Most ended with one side giving up.
    1
  108. Unnamed object Ingredients: Hydrogen, time
    1
  109. That's the "official" reason, yes, and it is generally better to assume incompetence. Unfortunately it just doesn't fit the string of events, the timing, the specific policies they've made, or consistently who they've allowed through the system. It also doesn't fit that there has been NO boycott of a product or company because of showing up on a truly hate-filled video (because people know it's a fallible bot and can chock it up to the ad being targeted at THEM, not the content) and there were already pretty effective safeguards that greatly limited that before. Also, the "issue" of occasionally running into a misplaced ad isn't a new thing at all, but suddenly it was a problem, and with companies you wouldn't expect to be super conscious about their image. For example, Walmart was one of the early boycotters, but they're not really known for being super conscious about ethical behavior. They are, however, well known for liking trade deals, and when the TPP ran into significant problems and a lot of the electorate (on BOTH "sides") in the US wouldn't quiet down about their outrage at the corporate establishment, we got this boycott that started with advertisers and some 2-bit tabloid hit-pieces no one cared about, quickly followed by the corporate media (which is hemorrhaging viewers, due to a justifiable lack of public confidence). The huge conglomerates http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-television/ that control them then realized their success with this and are broadening their attacks to include the competition for their other shows. You're right that this started with news media, but it's not about actual fake news, but that independent news isn't influenced by direct ad dollars like TV stations are and so doesn't tow the established corporate narrative. Keep in mind that one of the "news" channels on TV (which YouTube started pushing just a few months after the crackdown on independent media) has been consistently found to have their viewers be less informed than those who watch no news in all and HAS has had consumers boycott companies that advertise with them due to offensive content in their overt propaganda, so the idea that YouTube is trying to actually be responsible about tone and accuracy doesn't fit their actions.
    1
  110. I'm here just wanting humanity to achieve a positive milestone worthy of a year 1 of a new calendar because while I like history and fantasy, I do also like sci-fi.
    1
  111. Player Review I think I saw something about them reversing the policy after the outcry they got, but IDK for sure
    1
  112. Unnamed object Ingredients: Hydrogen, time
    1
  113. Every soldier in every army carries a dagger (or equivalent) and every armor can be defeated by such after some grappling. That said, the antiarmor weapons are going to be a serious issue until equipment can be changed
    1
  114. Bastard swords, shamshirs, and tulwars for me
    1
  115. Ah good, an engineering student. Hello, I have a question: My rough calculations have changing the impact angle of the blade from 90° to 45° as decreasing the effective edge angle by about 29% since it's taking a longer path to get to the thickest part of the blade. I imagine even ignoring the sheer stesses of the drawing motion, this increase in effective sharpness would itself contribute to the cutting ability of the blade. Am I off base with this? If not, how much of an effect would you say this has?
    1
  116. Yes, if you can hit them, striking there is an excellent target. Nearly all the blood for the entire arm flows through the armpit, so the bleeding is comparable to severing the arm. Also, there are the nerves that control the arm (meaning they won't be able to use it to try and kill you while they bleed out). Even if you don't hit the center and just get the muscles controling the shoulder, you still make the arm basically useless.
    1
  117. Everyone interested in this should watch this video by Roland Warzecha as a follow-up https://youtu.be/7vqte0QbXnc It doesn't attempt to give an estimate on it, but it's good to help one think about the question the right way IMO. IMO 30 seconds to a couple minutes would be entirely normal. Video games and movies are usually too long, but modern martial arts very often have people acting WAY too aggressively leading to unrealistically short fights.
    1
  118. LoneWanderer360 soft is good for shields. You want them to flex instead of crack, and if an opponent's weapon bites in too deep and gets stuck, all the better. Also, don't forget you usually had a thin layer of hide/linen helping to hold it together as well.
    1
  119. I did some research a while back for some RPG reasons I was getting way to technical with, and found that, for my purposes, iron and bronze had roughly equivalent mechanical properties. I've seen some evidence that there was a little high-carbon steel floating around back when both were in use (the primative smelting process produced varrying carbon content, but the higher stuff could be seperated out), but if we're just talking about the kind of iron/low carbon steel that was common, sometimes one or the other would be harder.
    1
  120.  @krieger8825  nah, your taste just sucks.
    1
  121. TheBeastWithin unrelated to the main discussion going on here, but yes, daggers were more common, because nearly EVERYONE in any culture that armed themselves with anything would have a dagger as a final backup weapon, and because they're unmatched for close grappling. Most styles can even be carried in leu of a knife to use as a tool as well. Also, with their low cost and how easy it is to wear one, there's no reason not to have one on you.
    1
  122. Yeah, I wish he would stick to food stuff. His content there is actually good, but he just doesn't get science at all.
    1
  123. Tower Shield is a term that seems to have originated from gaming (specifically D&D). If you're going to use it, it serves best as a category of shields covering things like the rectangular scutum and pavise (a type of large shield able to stand on its own, often used for cover by crossbow men)
    1
  124. Seven Proxies seduction-based reconnaissance?
    1
  125. With less weight, cost, and mercury poisoning!
    1
  126. I'd add to that that there was occasional use of horn lamellar armor too from what I understand. Even paper armor has some evidence and tests have proved plausible designs effective. While metal is almost always preferred, almost every material you can think of has been used in armor to put something resistive between vulnerable flesh and enemy weapons when in a pinch. Stone is the only thing I can think of that isn't completely silly which hasn't (and even then, only if you don't count ceramic armors we use today).
    1
  127. Well there are whip swords...and those are terrifying to anyone not in mail (& if you have any sense, that includes to the person holding it)
    1
  128. Itorca fairly sure those laws wouldn't hold up anymore. There are plenty of state laws on the books in the US that are flat out unconstitutional, but just haven't been removed technically.
    1
  129. paulo aguiar idk, but you're going to want to start by specifying which crusade you're talking about if you want an answer as that's a wide time period. (1st crusade was still using mail, for example)
    1