Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Great white sharks are larger than lions.

Blue whales are bigger than great white sharks.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Great white sharks are larger than lions.

Blue whales are bigger than great white sharks.

The answer is never "blue whales"

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Great white sharks are larger than lions.

Blue whales are bigger than great white sharks.

Australia is bigger than blue whales.

 Hordini wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Great white sharks are larger than lions.

Blue whales are bigger than great white sharks.

Australia is bigger than blue whales.

Canada is bigger than Australia but New Zealand is smaller than Australia.

This seems like the perfect spot for a "Your mom is bigger than Canada" joke.

Lions are bigger than Canada.

Tigers are bigger than...

Oh, we did that one already!

What about elephants and the moon?

I must have missed something in this thread.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
I must have missed something in this thread.

All hail the glorious turtle pie

 LordofHats wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
[ Those were to raise funds against the Franks. It was a war between Christianity and Pagan Religions at the time period. Raids against the Holy Roman Empire and France was also recorded.

Now that makes sense. Was it a united effort or more of a personal effort to those who cared enough to take some kind of action?

I'm somewhat more inclined to believe a competent salvager/looter than a third world government, particularly given the details of that case.

His story is about as believable as that whole Egypt building a damn to cover up evidence that ancient Egyptians were black thing, even though they'd been building on that damn dam for upwards of 40 years. So yeah. Me no believy the story teller on that one

It was a united efforts of the scandivian pagans and the Saxons vs the Brittish Isles, France and the HRE.

 rockerbikie wrote:
It was a united efforts of the scandivian pagans and the Saxons vs the Brittish Isles, France and the HRE.

I find that hard to believe.

Palindrome wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
It was a united efforts of the scandivian pagans and the Saxons vs the Brittish Isles, France and the HRE.

I find that hard to believe.

Not entirely united but in the past when Christians declared holy wars, different religions used to unite. Try to think them as desperate allies, they would not attack each other but they would attack the enemy to steal sacred artifacts from the Christians such as the bones of saints.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ia Tiger is bigger than a lion!

Who the hell doesn't know this?

Me!

For years, I bought into the king-of-the-jungle-myth. I don't mind being humiliated on this site, as I suffered the shame of fething it up in a pub quiz.

Anyway, back OT. The pope lives in the Vatican

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ia Tiger is bigger than a lion!

Who the hell doesn't know this?

Me!

For years, I bought into the king-of-the-jungle-myth. I don't mind being humiliated on this site, as I suffered the shame of fething it up in a pub quiz.

Anyway, back OT. The pope lives in the Vatican

Lions do not live in jungles and horses are larger than sheep.

Where the hell did this thread's point wander off too? I was having fun learning about common misconceptions.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course we could play it safe and just say he Kronked her. Would be more specific to the situation.

"Hey baby, lets go Kronking together"

That's illegal in most southern states...

I love the myth that medieval armor weighed nearly 100 pounds, as was so heavy that a knight couldn't stand up if fallen, and needed help to get on his horse. As a man who weighs 160 pounds and can run in even 40 pounds of armor, I laugh at that.

Especially as I can turn on the TV and see the guys from Full Metal Jousting, in their 100 pounds of armor, get on their horses and get up unassisted when they are unhorsed and take a roll in the dirt.

Hell, I've seen the actual men from that show at a local Ren Faire. The only part of the myth that is true is that Jousting Knights don't just vault into the saddle- they use a step ladder. And most of that is because their horses are not race horses, they are huge.

Yup, armor was specifically designed to NOT impede your ability to fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yup, armor was specifically designed to NOT impede your ability to fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg

You'd think that, knowing knights to be an elite warrior class, people would realize that it only makes sense that their armor not impede their ability to fight

Maybe the knights deliberatly spread the myth that armor was hard to fight in. So that when they were seen not being slowed the peasents would think they had inhuman strength and power.

 rockerbikie wrote:
They were a group of nations. Harold Fairhair united Norway, I don't know who united Sweden though.

Technically it'd be Erik the Holy, although in practise it'd be Birger Jarl. Erik was King of what would become Sweden until he got killed. The power struggle went on until Birger Jarl's son Magnus became king. As he was but a boy, Birger Jarl set about bringing the Rule of Law into common practice by chopping the heads off of rebel noblemen of his own house instead of just beating their mercenary armies and then telling them never to do it again, as was the old custom.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe the knights deliberatly spread the myth that armor was hard to fight in. So that when they were seen not being slowed the peasents would think they had inhuman strength and power.

Accoridng to QI one of the main reasons for the myth's popularity is Laurence Olivier. During the filming of Richard III he insisted on being winched onto a horse when wearing armour despite the protestations of the films historical advisor and as he was the star he got his way.

I'd heard that too.

Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe the knights deliberatly spread the myth that armor was hard to fight in. So that when they were seen not being slowed the peasents would think they had inhuman strength and power.

Accoridng to QI one of the main reasons for the myth's popularity is Laurence Olivier. During the filming of Richard III he insisted on being winched onto a horse when wearing armour despite the protestations of the films historical advisor and as he was the star he got his way.

Ah movies. I suspect their responsible for a great many historical myth

 LordofHats wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe the knights deliberatly spread the myth that armor was hard to fight in. So that when they were seen not being slowed the peasents would think they had inhuman strength and power.

Accoridng to QI one of the main reasons for the myth's popularity is Laurence Olivier. During the filming of Richard III he insisted on being winched onto a horse when wearing armour despite the protestations of the films historical advisor and as he was the star he got his way.

Ah movies. I suspect their responsible for a great many historical myth

I've read that the myth originated in Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court." It's been seen in movies since, of course. Thanks for nothing, Samuel Clemens!

Van Gogh didn't cut his ear off. He cut off the lobe of his left ear.

That the upside down cross is a symbol of satan.
Actually when Peter was crucified, he asked for it to be upside down, because he though he was'nt worthy to die the same way as jesus. This, An upside down cross actually humbles you before god.
Either that, or the pope is really fricking metal

Palindrome wrote:
It does, but only the German armies were capable of launching succesful Blitzkreig style attacks in the early war period; quite simply no one else was properly set up for it, the other combatants lacked the strong armoured formations and/or lacked the cohesion to carry through with a fast breakthrough attack.

Sure. There's no denying there was what ended up being blitzkreig style operations undertaken in the attack on France, and that French deployment (no reserves, no stronghold preparations) meant those operations were stunningly successful.

But the point is these attacks were not part of an overall strategy in the German High Command to what is now understood as Blitzkreig. That was only seen later in Soviet methods, where you'd see an overall plan to attack in force at a specific location to achieve, with the overall plan to destroy enemy positions in the rear and isolate forward units.

The term 'Blitzkrieg' was actually coined by an American (IIRC) journalist.

Yeah, though I thought the journalist was British. Referring to the attack on Poland, I believe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
During the 1930s, Britian made and sold more guns than anybody (including America) and out spent everybody. Where as the Germans (being in Europe) spent more money on tanks, Britian's money went on the navy (what a surprise) and a massive upgrade of Singapore's defences (for all the good it did) plus major investments in Radar and the RAF. It's always been believed that Britian wasn't ready for war in the 1930s. It was, just reluctant to get involved.

That's somewhat true, but overall doesn't really capture the full story.

Yes, much of Britain's defense spending was committed to the Royal Navy, in many cases on maintaining old, pre-WWI vessels. And much went to that giant white elephant, Fortress Singapore. And France was committed to its own white elephant the Maginot Line.

But over and above that, Germany spent more on their military. They brought it over 10% of GDP in 1936, and to almost 15% by 1938. Neither Britain or France, despite massive military expansion from 1934 onwards, exceeded 7% before the outbreak of war.





And despite all of that, with a more effective defence the German attack on France still should have failed. But it didn't, and the rest is history.

 sebster wrote:

The term 'Blitzkrieg' was actually coined by an American (IIRC) journalist.

Yeah, though I thought the journalist was British. Referring to the attack on Poland, I believe?

I read somewhere that the Germans actually used the term Bewegungskrieg (roughly, maneuver warfare). I'm not sure when that term first started being used, but I wouldn't be surprised if it predated WWII.