“Public Matter”, what the Romans called their government, sometimes translated (when not translated simply as ‘Republic’) as “Commonwealth”

Heavily depends on the war and the period. Dedicated mercenary companies, like those which handled much of Italian internecine warfare at the time, were often well-armored. There are… maybe 20 here, on both sides, fully armored, while it would be very reasonable for an army to have a significant percentage of their main body of troops fairly fully armored. In the English War of the Roses, there are battles where maybe a fifth of the entire army is likely armored something like this.

Other troops in the main body may have been equipped with some form of cheaper munitions plate; at this point, mail was largely relegated to an auxiliary position. The light infantry, if armored, would likely have worn brigandines or jack of plates

tbf, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Sun Tzu also emphasized the power of discipline - up to and including executions to provide examples. By the same line, the Romans, with whom divide et impera (‘divide and rule’) is associated, were radical in that they regarded the Res Publica as for the good of all people under its power, not just the privileged elite or just the citizens, or even just the members of the polity’s preferred ethnicities.

Stoßtruppen, the SA was a later Nazi org.

These Stormtroopers are literally just assault troops for Imperial (not Nazi) Germany. They may be crazy to volunteer to charge into a trench at night with grenades, knives, and pistols, but not necessarily fascists (or proto-fascists, as during WW1 fascism had not yet come into its modern form)

“One more napalm run bro, one more burning village and Communism will TRULY be defeated!”

https://www.plektronfinearts.com/artwork-details/MjA1/egyptian-bright-turquoise-glazed-tubular-bead-necklace

https://www.runjeetsingh.com/antiques/artworks/bronze-sculpture---caucasian-warrior

https://www.runjeetsingh.com/antiques/artworks/ritual-dance-shield

That’s an incredible style, especially for the period!

Explanation: People often note that Alexander the Great died young, even for the period, dying of natural illness (possibly exacerbated by exhaustion, old injuries, or alcoholism).

… but Alexander was a noted risk-taker who lived his whole military career on the fucking edge. It’s probably a miracle he didn’t get his skull caved in by an axe earlier.

Explanation: The Vietnam War, as it’s known here in the USA, was an utterly pointless clusterfuck of a war wherein the US backed several successive military juntas against the Communist North Vietnam because [checks notes] gommunism bad

It led to a decade-long ‘intervention’ in the ongoing Vietnamese civil war, causing tens-of-thousands of American deaths and over a million Vietnamese deaths when casualties from both sides of the civil war are counted.

It was an unpopular war at the time, though opposition to the war didn’t solidify in US domestic politics until the late 60s. Many American troops in Vietnam were conscripts, and even many volunteers ended up deeply disillusioned by what was very apparently the defense of a brutal and corrupt military junta against a relatively popular government, with no plan for success and utter breakdown at all levels of the American military hierarchy. In addition, the American administration approved a terror bombing campaign that was both deeply immoral and utterly ineffective at doing anything other than killing Vietnamese civilians.

Many of the Viet Cong, the guerilla forces in favor of North Vietnam, were not well equipped and subject to official or unofficial reprisal attacks by American, South Vietnamese, or ethnic paramilitaries on their home villages, regardless of whether they were actually there at the time or not. They spent long years in rural areas, surviving on the margins to avoid being detected by enemy forces, fed only the faintest drip of resupply that was able to be smuggled in from North Vietnam, and suffering high casualty rates.

While the Viet Cong were important, their contribution lessened after the Tet Offensive, and much of the ‘heavy lifting’ was done by North Vietnam’s formal military. Regardless, they suffered greatly for the cause of defeating the South Vietnam junta, regardless of what one thinks of how North Vietnam developed. North Vietnam would unite the country after American forces withdrew.

Vietnam is doing okay nowadays, though it’s regrettably still a single-party state. Relations with the US were normalized after the Cold War, and the Vietnam War remains a trope in the American consciousness both for pointless and immoral foreign wars, and for long struggles of attrition that cannot be won.

Disagreeing with a state department narrative pushed by fundamentalists in the first trump admin doesn’t make me fascist or a genocide apologist.

“I’m not a genocide denialist because there is no genocide!”

So the same idiotic line as every other Nazi bootlicker out there, lmao.

Fucking own up to it, coward. “I deny the Uyghur genocide” would at least be honest, instead of dancing around the issue because your bad-faith ass wants to be taken serious by people who aren’t fucking Nazis.

Calling george orwell a hack also isn’t genocide apologia

No, but calling him a social democrat is very telling combined with the rest of your imperialist apologia. Almost like your simping for Russian and Chinese imperialism makes you divide even socialists into different ‘camps’ of good and bad…?

No, that can’t be it, it must be a conspiracy by the CIA!

You are an endless fountain of state department and nazi historical revisionism. Maybe some day it will get cataloged, but you’re such an obvious clown that it’s really not neccessary.

You are a campist for the first world, it’s extremely telling how fragile you are that you can’t even tolerate someone badmouthing the genocidal slaveowners that ‘founded’ this hellhole.

lmao

Auramaxxed

The thing is that revolution vs. counter-revolution is a VERY important distinction to make here. In characterizing it as a counter-revolution, and, as acknowledged by other comments by the same user, characterizing it as regressive, the point implied by the facts mentioned is not “The American Revolution was deeply flawed”, which I would never dispute, but “The American Revolution was backwards and a negative thing.” The flaws and hypocrisies of the American Revolution ran deep, but it was also a legitimate struggle for bourgeois democracy (complete with the start of privileging of capitalist over feudal modes of production) against a distant imperialist power which denied self-determination to millions who lived under their rule.

That I brought up the American Revolution in the context of the idea of getting rid of the Constitution - with me supporting the idea of scrapping the Constitution despite the danger by that even the ones who wrote it up had to struggle with the thought of "This could get worse, but at some point, we have to take that chance or it will never get better" - and it gets ‘refuted’ by someone claiming it was counter-revolutionary and a bad example (for choosing to roll the fucking dice???) is just campist dribble from that user, whom I am unfortunately familiar with.

French Revolution was much a better bourgeois revolution though, I agree.

not hearing any disagreements.

Literally already pointed out a contradiction to your claim in this very thread, made by me even before we started talking. But literacy isn’t a strong point of fascists, I know.

Sorry that you’re upset that I quoted your genocide apologia, which you have continued failed to refute. Sorry that you can’t quote genocide apologia from me, considering I don’t fucking engage in genocide apologia, because I’m not bootlicking fascist scum.

Explanation: The Vietnam War, as it’s known here in the USA, was an utterly pointless clusterfuck of a war wherein the US backed several successive military juntas against the Communist North Vietnam because [checks notes] gommunism bad

It led to a decade-long ‘intervention’ in the ongoing Vietnamese civil war, causing tens-of-thousands of American deaths and over a million Vietnamese deaths when casualties from both sides of the civil war are counted.

It was an unpopular war at the time, though opposition to the war didn’t solidify in US domestic politics until the late 60s. Many American troops in Vietnam were conscripts, and even many volunteers ended up deeply disillusioned by what was very apparently the defense of a brutal and corrupt military junta against a relatively popular government, with no plan for success and utter breakdown at all levels of the American military hierarchy. In addition, the American administration approved a terror bombing campaign that was both deeply immoral and utterly ineffective at doing anything other than killing Vietnamese civilians.

Many of the Viet Cong, the guerilla forces in favor of North Vietnam, were not well equipped and subject to official or unofficial reprisal attacks by American, South Vietnamese, or ethnic paramilitaries on their home villages, regardless of whether they were actually there at the time or not. They spent long years in rural areas, surviving on the margins to avoid being detected by enemy forces, fed only the faintest drip of resupply that was able to be smuggled in from North Vietnam, and suffering high casualty rates.

While the Viet Cong were important, their contribution lessened after the Tet Offensive, and much of the ‘heavy lifting’ was done by North Vietnam’s formal military. Regardless, they suffered greatly for the cause of defeating the South Vietnam junta, regardless of what one thinks of how North Vietnam developed. North Vietnam would unite the country after American forces withdrew.

Vietnam is doing okay nowadays, though it’s regrettably still a single-party state. Relations with the US were normalized after the Cold War, and the Vietnam War remains a trope in the American consciousness both for pointless and immoral foreign wars, and for long struggles of attrition that cannot be won.

Also, magistrates wearing shades so the CRIMINALS can’t look into their eyes and guess how they’re feeling about the criminal’s current testimony 😎

Explanation: In WW1, it’s sometimes thought of the Central Powers and the Triple Entente both having tanks of their own, duking it out over the mud and blood of the trenches. This is technically true, insofar as Imperial Germany did have a very cool boxy tank of its own design.

… however, the Triple Entente outproduced Germany on tanks by two orders of magnitude, to the point where the most common tank used by Imperial Germany was… captured British tanks.

Explanation: In WW1, it’s sometimes thought of the Central Powers and the Triple Entente both having tanks of their own, duking it out over the mud and blood of the trenches. This is technically true, insofar as Imperial Germany did have a very cool boxy tank of its own design.

… however, the Triple Entente outproduced Germany on tanks by two orders of magnitude, to the point where the most common tank used by Imperial Germany was… captured British tanks.