Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Metatron"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Columbus was backed by many scholars. Among them the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is and, at the same time, everyone palced Japan more far from China that it really is (see, for example the orb of Behaim).
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Columbus was backed by many scholars. Among them the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is and, at the same time, everyone palced Japan more far from China that it really is (see, for example the orb of Behaim).
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Even having the right equipment and know-how, to take even a small fortress needed weeks, or months, and a far larger army. That's why they had been so successful for so long. It was a very expensive warfare for the attackers. To try to speed things by dividing the army and attacking many fortresses at once, meant to loose the biggest advantage the Mongols had, their command chain, able to cohordinate tens of thousands men during a battle. It had already been noted in the first invasion that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements, when cohordination was much simpler. And infact, in the subsequent Mongol attempts of invasion, Hungarians and Poles exploited that. they built more fortresses, increased their mounted units, and divided the campaign in multiple small scale engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.
2
-
The problem was the number.
Mongols conquered many fortified cities, and many fortresses located in strategic points. Because they were important and worth the effort.
Because even having the right equipment and know-how, to take even a small fortress needed weeks, or months, and a far larger army. That's why they had been so successful for so long. It was a very expensive warfare for the attackers.
In western Europe there were tens of thousands of fortresses whose garrisons were capable to resist for weeks or months against far larger armies, and dividing the horde in multiple small columns to attack many fortresses at the same time was a bad idea. Already in the first invasion, it had been noticed that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements. The real difference was the Mongol chain of command, capable to effectively cohordinate tens of thousands of men in pitched battles, while European commanders still led from the front, so knew what was happening only close to them.
In the subsequent attempts of invasion, Hungarians and Poles exploited that advantage. They built more fortresses, increased the number of mounted units, and divided the campaign into multiple small engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.
Then there is the fact that in Europe, praires ends in Hungary (that's why both the Huns and the Hungars came there before the Mongols). Western Europe was more forested, and so much less favourable to steppe riders.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There was a minimum height to join the legion.
Surely there was some potentially exceptional warrior among the ones excluded but, since, once into it, the legionaries were all trained the same way, it was more efficient to train the ones that were more phisically gifted from the start, that wasting resouces to train the weaklings, and then selecting few exceptions among them.
In ancient warfare, strenght and stamina counted A LOT, and weapons, as well as training, are expensive items, you want to give them to the ones that are likely to use them more effectively.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Heeroneko Deadpool had not been created to represent anyone, bar a parody of Spiderman's habit to talk while fighting. His description, given by Cable himself, that first hired him, was "a lethal idiot" (and he was not meant give idiots a representation). Him, or any other character, being "something" is not "representation", is simply having some charateristic, which I think is more so what you meant.
A character made for representation instead, IE, is the defunct "Snowflake", whose introduction described as being "not binary". Because obviously the first thing I want to know of a superhero is who he/her wants to fuck...
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Heeroneko That's representation. The character is meant not to have a personal trait. Is meant to represent. To be an example of. Characters that are meant to represent are bound to be abysmal, because there's no way to decently write a character that's meant to represent a community.
Unfortunately, a lot of people make this mistake. Critics tend to acritically (isn't that funny?) exalt characters made like that, because they "spread the right message", regardless of the quality of the work, and who dare to object is labeled as a homophobe, misogynist, and worse. And, among those who label, other than the aforementioned critics, there are the members of the minorities. Not the members that really read the comics, yeah, who KNOWS the media, KNOWS that those characters are terrible, but you don't need to really read comics to be vocal on twitter about "how they should be made".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1) There's nothing wrong in making a documentary / series even on the only known sample, until it's also higlighted that's the only known sample and not the norm. Yasuke, Abram Petrovic Gannibal... why not? Someone wants to make a TV series on the life of a fictional Black African (from a group Living in North Africa, or coming from south of the Sahara with a caravan) that enlists as an auxiliary in the Roman Army, participates in one or more campaigns, earns citizenship, becomes centurion, is honourably discharged, starts living as a civilian Roman citizen in some part of the Empire and even obtains some minor public office (more was impossible without having followed the cursus honorum)? Good, as long as is historically accurate.
2) In a documentary, you can highlight the various possibilities. In a series, when you can only make a choice, it's better to stick to the most widely accepted interpretation, but the interpretation of a minority of scholars, as long as it's a legitimate and discussed scientific theory , is acceptable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2