History (and related interesting facts)

Accurate and funny.

One of the latest Sassanid remnants from late 6th century:



Khosro II and Ahura Mazda



A Sassanid Cataphract

Also there are female musicians who play Chang (Persian Harp):



Similar to Byzantines, Persians had Mosaic arts too:



The angel of victory:

static.panoramio.com/photos/large/74001883.jpg

Another arc next to that one from 3th-4th century:



Sassanid remnants should be at least 20 times more than what exists now, but Arabs and later Muslim either plundered, reused or destroyed most of the buildings and arts.

It's some nasty shit.

Great mosaic arts.

I'll likely add some ancient arts and architecture pics from every regional civilization in two weeks. You'll ride the amazement train!

I love Japanese history of the Warring States (Sengoku) period and the following description of its three great leaders:



Of the three, Nobunaga was the most innovative and most ruthless, Hideyoshi the best diplomat, and Ieyasu the most patient and clever. Ieyasu was fortunate enough to outlive his rivals and was able to leverage his political power to become Shogun, though Hideyoshi was the first to actually unify Japan and neither could have succeeded without Nobunaga's relentless conquest of central Japan.

To me, Hideyoshi was the most interesting, as he was not a samurai but the son of a peasant farmer who worked his way into power through skill and perseverance. Eventually he was granted the title of Kampaku or Taikou (Regent) by the Emperor as he could not be appointed Shogun due to his low-caste birth.

So, I have an interest in medieval European history, particulaly Western Europe. I actually got a book about Charlemagne for Christmas. Recently though, I finished reading a biography of a great figure of English history that so few people I know have even heard of: William Marshall.

And he was pretty awesome, rising as he did from the fourth son of a minor noble to the most powerful land owner in England and regent in the last years of his life.

I'm just gonna write a bit about the highlights:

As a child in the period of English history known as "The Anarchy", he was held hostage by King Stephen after his father, John Marshall, switched sides in the ongoing war to support Empress Matilda's claim to the throne for her son Henry II. Stephen threatened to hang William if Marshall did not surrender Newbury Castle and then threatened to launch William at the castle wall with a trebuchet when John refused, purportedly boasting that he had the "hammer and anvil with which to forge still more and better sons!" (Probably while demonstratively grabbing his crotch). Either because he wasn't a total monster or because it was clear John didn't give a damn, Stephen chose not to kill William.

Matilda won that war and John benefited, but as a younger son William had no inheritance. He was sent to join the household of William de Tancarville in Normandy, where he was trained as a knight. He saw his first battle there too, but where he truly found his calling was in the tournaments. Forget jousting and all that, this predates that. The earlier tournaments were basically war games, with teams of mounted armored knights attacking one another en mass and beating each other senseless with the goal of holding another knight's armor and horse hostage until they pay ransom. It's like if robbing people was a professional sport. William was very good at it. Knights were usually well enough armored that deaths were uncommon (When they did happen, it was often because they fell and got trampled by the horses). At one tournament, William was declared the finest knight, but nobody could find him at the declaration. When they did, he had his head on an anvil as the blacksmith employed all manner of tongs and hammers to free him from a helmet that had taken such a pounding that he could no longer get it off.

William's first encounter with a royal not threatening to launch him at a castle wall was when he accompanied his uncle, Patrick Earl of Salisbury in escorting Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, who had been sent to Acquitaine by her husband to help quell a rebellion. His uncle was killed and William was captured in an ambush by Guy de Lusignan (For the movie buffs, remember that asshole French Templar who married the queen to become king of Jerusalem in Kingdom of Heaven? That guy). His uncle being the only important and wealthy person that would actually care enough to ransom him, things didn't look good for William, but to his surprise Eleanor took it upon herself to ransom the young knight and, probably at her suggestion, was appointed as a tutor to her eldest son, Henry "the Young King," Apparently he made an impression.

See, there were actually two kings at the time. In an effort to avoid the destructive spiral into lawlessness and chaos that had accompanied his own rise to power, Henry II had his namesake son ceremonally crowned king at a young age to avert any succession crisis. This became point of tension because the "Young King" was a king without a kingdom, consigned to wait in the wings until his father died while his younger brothers were assigned castles and lands to rule in his father's kingdom. Young Henry and William got along famously though because they both shared a great passion for tournaments. Henry was quite popular as one of the biggest sponsors of tournaments in Europe and a skilled participant. Henry ran an all star team with William amongst his knights as he roamed from tournament to tournament, amassing riches and fame. William's reputation rivaled the Young King's own, becoming something of a sensation. Henry only grew more bitter toward his father, however, as he lacked the means to bestow rewards upon his retinue for their loyalty as was expected of a monarch. That might have been why William was quite willing to follow him in open rebellion against his father.

Young Henry's rebellion was dramatic, but it ended with a whimper when the Young King became ill and died. Out of apparent respect for William's loyal service to his son even when the odds were against him and perhaps an unfulfilled desire to be reconciled with his son, Henry II welcomed William into his court. William served the old king faithfully for years and was awarded lands and titles, including custody of a young heiress that he DID NOT marry (Orphaned heiresses without husbands were often made royal wards, Henry II at the time joked that William was holding out for a better offer). Henry II rivaled John Marshall as far as terrible fathers go though and had a particular talent for driving his sons to rebellion. For a number of reasons, including that Henry II had reputedly taken Richard's fiancé as a mistress, Richard the Lionheart went into rebellion. William fought for Henry, but ultimately the Lionheart lived up to his reputation. Toward the end of the rebellion, Henry was forced to flee his continental holdings as the last city he held fell to Richard's forces. William was escorting the King as they fled the city when he saw Richard in pursuit.

William did the most badass thing he could think of. He bade the King continue, turned around, and charged straight for the Lionheart. He drove his lance through Richard's horse, making him the only person known to have unseated the warrior-king. He had Richard at his mercy, but chose not to kill him. Instead he left him there. This made it awkward some weeks later, when Henry II became ill and died and Richard came to assume his rightfully inherited throne. Richard purportedly took William aside and joked that Marshall would have killed him if he had not deflected his lance with his arm. William looked him dead in the eye and told the king that if he had wanted to kill him, he would dead, "if I had wanted to, I could have driven it straight through your body, just as I did that horse of yours."

Apparently Richard LIKED that answer and proceeded to award Marshall lands and the hand of Isabel de Clare, the fabulously wealthy heiress of a Norman Marcher Lord and an Irish princess, heir to swathes of land in Wales, Ireland and Normandy, effectively making Marshall one of England's major lords overnight. She was sixteen and he was over twice her age at this point, but by all evidence they developed a relationship of mutual affection and respects, having ten children together. Though it was common at the time, there is no evidence that William Marshall ever took a mistress.

Now, William's relationship with King John was... complicated. William did not go with Richard to the Third Crusade, but instead stayed in England. Richard appointed William as one of several Justiciars assigned to manage the realm in his absence, which meant they spent much of their time holding John in check with some help from Queen Eleanor as he attempted to usurp his brother's rule. John shared his ruthless ambition with his brothers, but lacked their political instincts, leading to a succession of horrible deals with Philip of France that ultimately hurt him and lost his ancestral land. Yet William was always loyal to John when he ascended the throne, even as he frittered away the crown's continental holdings and attempted to steal William's land in Ireland (He held William at court and kept his son hostage, meanwhile Isabel rallied William's loyal knights in Ireland and resisted John's attempts to dislodge them). He also supported John when the barons rebelled and brokered peace between them for however long that lasted.

When John died though, many barons had had it with the Plantagenets and supported Prince Louise of France's bid for the English throne. The baronial forces outnumbered the royalists and William had every incentive to join their side, he was already paying homage to the French king for his lands in Normandy. But William, now famous for his loyalty, instead spearheaded the royalist cause and became the guardian of John's son, 11-year old Henry III. Now almost 70 and with some surprising aid from a papal legate that declared the royalist cause a crusade, Marshal devastated the baronial forces and saw that Louise' fleet was pushed back. Accounts say he was so enthusiastic he almost charged into battle without his helmet. A council of barons declared him regent and he spent his final two years doing his best to rebuild England and the royal governing apparatus.

Then he became ill and retreated to his estate, where he died two months later surrounded by his wife, sons, daughters, and loyal retainers. He was buried, at his direction, in a funeral shroud made from bolts of silk he had acquired during a brief trip to Jerusalem when he was a younger man before the Third Crusade. The papal legate eulogized him as the greatest knight the world had ever seen.

Well, I think that sounds like a life well lived.

So where is Lancelot in this incident?! <- My actual knowledge of Pre-1000 AD European history is very lackluster. I can name just several European kings between the fall of Rome and the great Catholic-Orthodox Schism! (Excluding in Byzantine Empire)

There is no "garbage". Even the most PC, revisionistic, masochistic estimates still make the Wildcat trading at least  1:1 with the Zero in air combat. In terms of aircraft destroyed ! In terms of pilots killed it's a clear win for the Wildcat.


But you apply "better" as in better low speed maneuverability, and better low speed climb and climb angle, and better range, to understand a generally better combat plane. I'm trying to throw some lights on matters. The Wildcat was better at high altitude, much faster in a dive, had better high speed maneuverability, was much stronger and better protected, and had an excellent radio. And despite your fixation with the cannon, I also happen to think the Wildcat had the better armament. The typical case was rather that it was the Zero that blew up in a fireball after a few .50 rounds.
How these different sets of advantages ultimately measure up is of course very hard to analyse or judge. But you can look at the actual combat contest. Which is why I make my case simple, by just saying: Look at how it turned out.  While the Americans were rightly in awe of the apparent performance of the Zero and rightly very worried, it's still a fact that Japanese air superiority was neutralized from the moment the Zero met up with the P-40 and Wildcat. And, anecdotally, there was this air battle where 16 Zeros of an elite unit clashed with 6 Wildcats of an elite unit. In the end the tally was one Wildcat lost and three Zeros lost. Hardly outclassed.


Planes should IMO be judged according to how well they serve their purpose. For combat planes in a war, that purpose is ultimately helping to win the war. Having moderate combat damage resulting in a returning plane that can be patched up or used for spare parts, and a returning, alive, more experienced pilot, beats a fatal fireball by a pretty massive margin. Also, you can't just focus on the pros and ignore the cons. The Zero's performance was bought with some pretty hefty sacrifices. The design concept of the Zero was lowest possible weight, never mind survivability, high speed flying qualities or equipment.  "Better"? If that really was the case, why wasn't the concept copied? Everybody else did the exact opposite, more and more as the war progressed, building heavier, stronger, better equipped combat planes. 

I'm not saying the Wildcat was the better plane. Not exactly. I'm leaving it open. In "which plane is now the best", I asked you to consider all angles. There's no doubt that the Zero's properties were crucial for the early Japanese expansion. But handsome is as handsome does. 15,553 Wildcat sorties with only 202 combat losses, and only 49 operational losses is pretty good. The F-4U flew 64,000 sorties, but had 1086 operational losses (and 538 combat losses, most to anti-aircraft).