For one particular "lurker"...

Dnia 2007-11-02 Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Nov 2, 12:46 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I just wanted to show you, that getting together here isn't such a
>> simple deal. We used to really murder each other.
>
> Oh, I'm not surprised. Nothing so bitter as fratricide! Funny how,
> for all his white supremacism, Hitler wound up murdering more Germans
> and white people in general than anyone else!

Hitler wasn't a *white* supremacist. He believed that Nordic race was
supreme to all others, not just white vs. rest.

>> Whatever.
>
> I've never noticed Poles walking around with Polish flags, etc.,
> before I hope that's not a trend. Only the low-life low-class types
> (even if they have money, like mobsters) walk around with flags and
> stuff every day.

And I hope that you stop that low-life nonsense. Only low-life
low-class types (even if they have money, like mobsters) go around
calling others low-life.

[...]
>> BTW - Frantisek was Slovak, not Czech, and he scored so high because he
>> more hunted than fought. I mean that he routinely abandoned missions to
>> wait at the shore for returning German planes. But he was an ace, all
>> the same.
>
> And they said that the Red Baron used to circle above the rest of his
> squadron, picking off the easy targets like obvious newbies, those
> with mechanical troubles, etc.
>
> As a former infantryman, I can assure you that the actual business of
> war-fighting much more resembles a cowardly rat scurrying from one
> opportunity to another, rather than some great lion defending his
> territory.

But you are supposed to go where your orders tell you to go, don't you?
Well, Frantisek often didn't. Technically he qualified to be
court-martialed.

[...]
>> We were fighting there and Brits knew pretty damn well how much we
>> helped, but they even didn't ask any Polish units to the victory parade
>> after the war. Well, except sqrd. 303, but they understandably refused.
>
> What???? Why not???? That's extremely bizarre!!

Because Brits didn't ask *anybody else*. The pilots of 303 considered
that it was an insult to all polish forces, who voluntarily shed a lot
of blood for Britain, to be treated this way. So they refused.

>> Man, they had twice the number of kills of next best unit. Three times
>> more than average with three times lower loses. Did I get the point
>> across this time?
>>
>> Oh, they flew outdated Hurricanes too, not Spitfires.
>
> That's really interesting, if true...

It's true.

> maybe the pre-war Polish Air
> Force was really small, so only the best made it in??

That was one reason, sure.

> I'd ask on my old sometime haunting ground of soc.history.world-war-ii
> but the sole moderator has been in the hospital for the past two
> months without internet access...I wonder what those WW II buffs know
> of all that you say....
>
>> Well, there are very well documented and numerous examples in the
>> sources. Actually the proverb at the time was, that fighting Tatars is
>> like fighting sparrows. It's way harder to catch them than to beat
>> them.
>
> How cute! I wonder what it means....

Do you? I can explain if you really ask and not just trying to be a
smartass.

>> No. They don't go into such details as who used to panic at the sight
>> of whom. ;-)
>>
>> You are very inaccurately rehearsing a popular myth concerning Mongols,
>> but it goes for way too long already, so let's just say that Mongols
>> weren't all that scary once somebody learned what to do about them.
>
> I wonder how all those steppe nomads got their fearsome reputations,
> then!

They used terror, for one reason. And they tottally surprised Western
Europe, who simply didn't know how to fight them. We were beaten too,
at Legnica.

But later on we had Tatars for neighbors for ages. Mongols were more
of a raiders than fighters. Raiders attack mostly civilians.

--
Andrzej Rosa

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:19:10 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dnia Wed, 31 Oct 2007 o 15:32 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
>> On Oct 26, 5:20 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And we are into judo and jujitsu, while fencing is on the decline. It
>>> happens.
>>
>> Indeed, I even read that traditional Jewish culture is very chic in
>> Poland these days among urban youth, to the point of many Poles
>> claiming tenuous and even fanciful relations and descent!
>
>I seriously doubt it.
>
>[...]
>>> They couldn't write.
>>
>> Actually, the Mongolians had an alphabet.
>
>Not at the time.

Since the early-13th century at least.
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/mongolian.htm

>On the other hand, during WWII we lost plenty of Poland which now is
>Ukraine, and I also never met anyone demanding those lands back. Plenty
>of nostalgic feelings, of course, but it seems that we somehow understand
>that clock moves only clockwise.

Except in the southern hemisphere.

>Just because during Napoleonic era British managed to understand, that
>their cavalry sucks majorly.

Their horses were all tired after swimming the Channel. Give 'em a fucking break.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:56:08 -0700, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Oct 31, 2:19 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I seriously doubt it.
>
>No, really! I've read two NYT articles about it this year.
>
>> Not at the time.
>
>Are you sure? Empire takes more than just fighters; it takes
>bureaucrats, and that means records, writing. Their leaders would
>have almost certainly been literate to some degree.
>
>> I never met one. We lost Eastern Ukraine in 17th century, so we had
>> ample time to get used to it. ;-)
>>
>> On the other hand, during WWII we lost plenty of Poland which now is
>> Ukraine, and I also never met anyone demanding those lands back. Plenty
>> of nostalgic feelings, of course, but it seems that we somehow understand
>> that clock moves only clockwise.
>
>Interesting.
>
>Well, the way Europe is heading, I do believe one day it'll all be
>integrated, like the United States. No need to fuss over the
>inevitable!
>
>> Not in the 16th and 17th century.
>
>Okay, I'll take your word for it.
>
>> Just because during Napoleonic era British managed to understand, that
>> their cavalry sucks majorly. Or at least one lieutenant (IIRC) did
>> understand it and by using influences of his friend (who happened to be
>> a lord) reformed British cavalry basing it on Hungarian patterns.
>>
>> Hungarian Hussars started just like Polish Hussars (from Serbian
>> warriors) but they evolved in the direction of light cavalry. In Poland
>> Hussars evolved into heavy cavalry, so they lost their utility by the
>> time of Napoleon. But still, we never lost a battle for 150 years as
>> long as Hussars were present.
>
>Well, the question naturally presents itself...if Poland had such a
>military tradition, how come it wasn't even its own country for
>hundreds of years??
>
>> That's so uplifting to know, that they already forgot who was the best
>> pilots of WWII. Wait... They even managed to never remember that. ;-)
>
>How do you account for "best pilots"?? I never heard of any Polish
>aces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_...o_World_War_II
"Polish pilots fought in the Battle of Britain, where the Polish 303 Fighter Squadron achieved the
highest number of kills of any Allied squadron..."

Remember, the Poles lasted longer fighting a *two-front* war than the Frogs did taking on just
Germany from just the East.

>Do you Poles see yourselves as a "warrior race"? Even the French
>still have militaristic airs. I've just never ever heard anything
>about Poland.

Much about Poland is still highly classified.

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 07:45:16 -0700, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

>...
>I don't know what the big deal is. How else is a Great Power a Great
>Power except through violence? It's like a guy proud of his big
>family, with many wives and kids, pretending that sex doesn't exist.
>The good thing about the Nazis was that they really believed in what
>they were talking about!
>
>...
>Funny, I thought Russians were the big traditional hatred of the Poles
>-- though I don't know of a Pole who's upset at Russians (not even
>Germans!), like how the Chinese are still simmering over Japan.
>...
>Actually, I also read, just yesterday, that Poland is pretty much flat
>country...that makes it easy to conquer, especially for horsemen!
>...
>I shall have to look into this. I'd always thought Poland was just a
>bigger Lithuania or something. =)
>...
>Well! The traditional definition of an ace is five kills (though in
>WW II that wasn't as big a deal as it was during WW I), so if the
>average for Polish pilots is six, that certainly sounds like a lot!
>But how many Polish pilots were there? I mean, if it was only like
>six hundred of them, then a average kill of six doesn't sound as
>impressive as the same average for a cohort of six thousand, say.
>...
>Yes, you only hear about the Anglo-Americans and the Germans. Then
>again, there was no Poland in WWI, and practically the same for
>WWII....
>...
>I'd never heard of Tatars and other such horsemen panicking at the
>sight of anyone! Is that what they teach in Polish schools?? What I
>learned here, in NYC, is that they never quite got an entrenched
>bureaucracy going, such that when the leader died (Tamerlane, Attila,
>Ghengis Khan, etc.) no one knew what to do anymore....
>
>...
>No, I've never heard it said that Poles were cowardly. I was only
>wondering at whether they had a martial tradition. I mean, yeah I
>know there were a lot of famous Polish generals and so forth -- but
>the same is true of the Irish, though they aren't exactly a war-like
>people, either (except here in the US, when they were mostly low-lifes
>a hundred years ago and such people are not only drunk but have
>nothing to lose anyway!).
>...

Man, what you don't know would fill the fucking Library of Congress.

On Nov 3, 2:11 pm, Lucas Buck <sbcp...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_...o_World_War_II
> "Polish pilots fought in the Battle of Britain, where the Polish 303 Fighter Squadron achieved the
> highest number of kills of any Allied squadron..."

Wikipedia. How cute.

What was that again about the Library of Congress and knowledge?

> Remember, the Poles lasted longer fighting a *two-front* war than the Frogs did taking on just
> Germany from just the East.

Really? How many weeks before Poland capitulated? How many before
the French asked for an armistice?

Oh, and, BTW, the Russians hardly fought the Poles. They waited until
the shooting basically stopped. There were individual acts of heroic
resistance against the Reds, but it was not centrally organized and
quite after their surrender to Hitler.

> Much about Poland is still highly classified.

?

On Nov 3, 2:16 pm, Lucas Buck <sbcp...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>
> Man, what you don't know would fill the fucking Library of Congress.


I don't see how you fault a man for learning.

After all, we can't all pretend to be history professors!

On Nov 2, 11:17 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hitler wasn't a *white* supremacist. He believed that Nordic race was
> supreme to all others, not just white vs. rest.

He was what we today would call a white supremacist. That he made
distinctions between Slavs and so-called Nordics and "Alpines" and
Mediterranean types (not to mention "Jews") is a nuance particular to
his times and not detracting at all from my statement that the racists
tend to kill their own more than anyone else! =)

> And I hope that you stop that low-life nonsense. Only low-life
> low-class types (even if they have money, like mobsters) go around
> calling others low-life.

There are definitely low-lifes, all right. Not egalitarian, I agree,
but life isn't fair, either. For whatever reason, the vast majority
of people are low-lifes in the world, people in whom the legacy of
civilization is usually at its nadir. Be politically correct if you
want, but the truth's the truth.

I just hope the Poles of New York aren't going to compete with the
Puerto Ricans here for King of the Low-Lifes title championship.

> But you are supposed to go where your orders tell you to go, don't you?
> Well, Frantisek often didn't. Technically he qualified to be
> court-martialed.

Yes, generally speaking, though it would depend on the circumstances,
which seem to bear him out: kills are kills, unless by waiting at the
shore instead of, saying, following along with his fellows he somehow
caused them to get killed.

> Because Brits didn't ask *anybody else*. The pilots of 303 considered
> that it was an insult to all polish forces, who voluntarily shed a lot
> of blood for Britain, to be treated this way. So they refused.

And the British didn't just say, okay, sure, let's all march, the more
the merrier????

I'm just having a hard time understanding why Britain would have
refused -- not just overlooked, but refused -- to have any Poles
marching in the victory parade. Just doesn't make sense.

Like I said, I'd ask in soc.history.world-war-ii but the sole
moderator's been out for over a month in the hospital without internet
access, so I guess I'll just have to take your word for it -- for now.

> It's true.
>
> That was one reason, sure.

Well, then, it's rather more understandable: six of ten isn't the same
as six of a hundred.

> Do you? I can explain if you really ask and not just trying to be a
> smartass.

While it's true that I'm so smart even my ass is smart, it's also true
that I'm not entirely sure what this proverb might mean, exactly, so
please elaborate.

> They used terror, for one reason. And they tottally surprised Western
> Europe, who simply didn't know how to fight them. We were beaten too,
> at Legnica.

Terror?? What's terror? I understand that rape and pillage was the
norm back then.

It's funny how serendipity works: I came across "The Mongol Art of
War" in the big Barnes and Nobles in NYC over the weekend and
immediately thought of a certain old Polish weightlifter on usenet. I
browsed the book for a few minutes and realized that you should try to
get it for a quick read -- it's a thin book at like not even two
hundred pages, and the professor makes a case about how they weren't
just marauders and faery tale bogeymen.

> But later on we had Tatars for neighbors for ages. Mongols were more
> of a raiders than fighters. Raiders attack mostly civilians.

They used to say that about the Vikings. Nowadays there's all kinds
of scholarship showing how they weren't mostly pirates, and quite
peaceable, too!

> --
> Andrzej Rosa

Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dnia Fri, 02 Nov 2007 o 15:45 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
>> Funny, I thought Russians were the big traditional hatred of the
>> Poles
>
> Not really. Actually we can't help but like Russians. Recently
> they rather hate us then the other way around. Somehow they feel
> betrayed, or what?

In politics maybe, but not Russian people - they only have this vague
idea that since Poles are Eastern European, they must be something
like Russians. So whenever we see a Pole we immediately try to hug him
(and her) and ask to have vodka with us. But Poles, esp. US
immigrants, abstractly hate Russians, just like Ukranians do, meaning
that they still hang out with and like every individual Russian they
know, but despise Russians as a concept, and as a whole. So, for
instance, as you know I was once asked out by a nice Polish girl at
the gym, "to have a drink", totally out of hatred.

That's because you're considered our little brothers with funny
languages, living in funny little countries :-) I mean, can't you just
walk over to the Ukraine to buy those cheaper cigarettes? Ukrainian
could be very funny to a Russian, because you can make some sense out
of it, but the accent sounds perhaps like some purposely exaggerated
US Southern to a purebred Englishman. Just recently an Ukranian showed
me his "pysan'ka" which was a folksy ornamented trinket. The word is
derived from "pisAt'" (to write, paint, or engrave) but pysan'ka means
a lil' pee-pee in Russian. I LOLed. Ukraine means "a remote province"
in Russian, which pisses them off immensely; they could slit your
throat for putting "the" in front of "Ukraine", because it makes that
implication. A famous Pole's name "Penderecki" sounds like ... no, I'm
not going there. More seriously, these are contries that had been
invaded by Russia, which somehow is a synonym for USSR. Russians are
simply unaware that it could be any sort of a problem.

Dnia Mon, 05 Nov 2007 o 21:25 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Nov 3, 2:11 pm, Lucas Buck <sbcp...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_...o_World_War_II
>> "Polish pilots fought in the Battle of Britain, where the Polish 303 Fighter Squadron achieved the
>> highest number of kills of any Allied squadron..."
>
> Wikipedia. How cute.
>
> What was that again about the Library of Congress and knowledge?
>
>> Remember, the Poles lasted longer fighting a *two-front* war than the Frogs did taking on just
>> Germany from just the East.
>
> Really? How many weeks before Poland capitulated?

68 years and still ticking.

> How many before
> the French asked for an armistice?
>
> Oh, and, BTW, the Russians hardly fought the Poles.

You got it wrong. It was the Poles who hardly fought Russians. Our
forces were told to do not engage Russians, but some did anyway, of
course. They even won some battles.

> They waited until the shooting basically stopped.

That's nonsense. German loses after the Russian invasion were higher
than before.

> There were individual acts of heroic
> resistance against the Reds, but it was not centrally organized and
> quite after their surrender to Hitler.

We _never_ surrendered to Hitler.

>> Much about Poland is still highly classified.
>
> ?

He's right. Both British and Russian archives are still closed.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Mon, 05 Nov 2007 o 21:24 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Nov 2, 11:17 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> There are definitely low-lifes, all right. Not egalitarian, I agree,
> but life isn't fair, either. For whatever reason, the vast majority
> of people are low-lifes in the world, people in whom the legacy of
> civilization is usually at its nadir. Be politically correct if you
> want, but the truth's the truth.

The truth is that most can't be low. It's mathematically highly
unlikely and practically impossible. Besides, I'm trying to tell you,
that whatever traits of low-lifeness you see, going about and pointing
to them is much more important trait than all of them combined.

It's not political correctness. It's how it is. But do what you like,
it's your life.

BTW - if flapping your flags around is a low-life trait than Americans
must be one of the lowest. ;-)

[...]
>> But you are supposed to go where your orders tell you to go, don't you?
>> Well, Frantisek often didn't. Technically he qualified to be
>> court-martialed.
>
> Yes, generally speaking, though it would depend on the circumstances,
> which seem to bear him out: kills are kills, unless by waiting at the
> shore instead of, saying, following along with his fellows he somehow
> caused them to get killed.

What's your guess on that?

But I really don't want to be hard on this guy. Actually I love him,
and I expect that our pilots did the same. He was an ace, however you
count it, despite his nerves being totally wrecked. At one point he
said that the only time he wasn't afraid was when he was flying a
mission, and I really know how he felt. He probably ended committing
suicide too.

>> Because Brits didn't ask *anybody else*. The pilots of 303 considered
>> that it was an insult to all polish forces, who voluntarily shed a lot
>> of blood for Britain, to be treated this way. So they refused.
>
> And the British didn't just say, okay, sure, let's all march, the more
> the merrier????
>
> I'm just having a hard time understanding why Britain would have
> refused -- not just overlooked, but refused -- to have any Poles
> marching in the victory parade. Just doesn't make sense.

You forgot that by 1946 we were "officially" enemies. Ministry of Truth
in Britain said so. Politics is an ugly little business.

> Like I said, I'd ask in soc.history.world-war-ii but the sole
> moderator's been out for over a month in the hospital without internet
> access, so I guess I'll just have to take your word for it -- for now.
>
>> It's true.
>>
>> That was one reason, sure.
>
> Well, then, it's rather more understandable: six of ten isn't the same
> as six of a hundred.

Our Air Forces weren't that low. Somehow the survivors of Polish and
French campaign managed to add to fourth Air Force in Europe, so we had
some people.

BTW - I found that German air loses during Polish campaign amounted to
40%. Not bad at all, wouldn't you say?

>> Do you? I can explain if you really ask and not just trying to be a
>> smartass.
>
> While it's true that I'm so smart even my ass is smart, it's also true
> that I'm not entirely sure what this proverb might mean, exactly, so
> please elaborate.

Tatars in general weren't interested in attacking our forces at all.
They came for slaves, so instead of concentrating their forces,
besieging fortresses and trying to win battles they spread their forces
and went after civilians. If you tried to oppose them by pressing for
battle it was an exercise in futility. They just avoided your big army
and went on with their pillaging business.

Even in battle their tactics often involved feigned retreat. They used
to pretend to run away from you, waited until pursuers got disorganized
and then turned against them.

Frontal attack didn't work well against Tatars. You needed to split
your forces too in such a way, that when Tatars feigned retreat from
part of your army, the second part attacked them form the side, and
feigned retreat could be turned into real panic.

With raids it worked in a bit similar manner, but it would take a moment
to explain too, but it really was harder to catch Tatars than to beat
them. They did run away from laughably small forces.

>> They used terror, for one reason. And they tottally surprised Western
>> Europe, who simply didn't know how to fight them. We were beaten too,
>> at Legnica.
>
> Terror?? What's terror? I understand that rape and pillage was the
> norm back then.

No, it wasn't. Armies left civilians alone for the most part.

> It's funny how serendipity works: I came across "The Mongol Art of
> War" in the big Barnes and Nobles in NYC over the weekend and
> immediately thought of a certain old Polish weightlifter on usenet. I
> browsed the book for a few minutes and realized that you should try to
> get it for a quick read -- it's a thin book at like not even two
> hundred pages, and the professor makes a case about how they weren't
> just marauders and faery tale bogeymen.

I never said that they were.

>> But later on we had Tatars for neighbors for ages. Mongols were more
>> of a raiders than fighters. Raiders attack mostly civilians.
>
> They used to say that about the Vikings.

And rightly so. Actually Viking and Tatar tactics weren't all that
different, if you allow for a difference between drakkar and a horse.

> Nowadays there's all kinds
> of scholarship showing how they weren't mostly pirates, and quite
> peaceable, too!

Especially so called "children lovers". It didn't took much to become a
children lover among Vikings. You just refused throwing kids in the air
and splitting them with your sword. Tatars liked to practice their
archery skills on captured slaves (probably damaged goods). I assume that
if you refused to shoot at them you became a slave lover of sorts.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Tue, 06 Nov 2007 o 00:07 GMT DZ napisa³(a):
> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dnia Fri, 02 Nov 2007 o 15:45 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
>>> Funny, I thought Russians were the big traditional hatred of the
>>> Poles
>>
>> Not really. Actually we can't help but like Russians. Recently
>> they rather hate us then the other way around. Somehow they feel
>> betrayed, or what?
>
> In politics maybe, but not Russian people - they only have this vague
> idea that since Poles are Eastern European, they must be something
> like Russians. So whenever we see a Pole we immediately try to hug him
> (and her) and ask to have vodka with us. But Poles, esp. US
> immigrants, abstractly hate Russians, just like Ukranians do, meaning
> that they still hang out with and like every individual Russian they
> know, but despise Russians as a concept, and as a whole.

That's just about 100% true. ;-) We do tend to like almost all Russians
we know (which is unusual for any other nation) but at the same time we
tend to hold a grudge against something they represent. You got it
perfectly right.

> So, for
> instance, as you know I was once asked out by a nice Polish girl at
> the gym, "to have a drink", totally out of hatred.
>
> That's because you're considered our little brothers with funny
> languages, living in funny little countries :-) I mean, can't you just
> walk over to the Ukraine to buy those cheaper cigarettes? Ukrainian
> could be very funny to a Russian, because you can make some sense out
> of it, but the accent sounds perhaps like some purposely exaggerated
> US Southern to a purebred Englishman. Just recently an Ukranian showed
> me his "pysan'ka" which was a folksy ornamented trinket. The word is
> derived from "pisAt'" (to write, paint, or engrave) but pysan'ka means
> a lil' pee-pee in Russian. I LOLed.

You'd have ROTFLed if you knew that we eat our pysankas.

> Ukraine means "a remote province"
> in Russian, which pisses them off immensely; they could slit your
> throat for putting "the" in front of "Ukraine", because it makes that
> implication. A famous Pole's name "Penderecki" sounds like ... no, I'm
> not going there. More seriously, these are contries that had been
> invaded by Russia, which somehow is a synonym for USSR.

Tsarat wasn't all that great either.

> Russians are
> simply unaware that it could be any sort of a problem.

The fact is, that you suffered worse than any other nation. And you
still do. I mean, you need a crash course in freedom, or something? ;-)

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Nov 6, 3:11 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> The truth is that most can't be low. It's mathematically highly
> unlikely and practically impossible.

Eh?

There have been many sociological studies which showed that in any
human organization, only like ~15% of the members actually get the
real work done -- the rest are hangers-on types.

That principle of the "small cadre" applies to cultural matters, too.
Only a small percentage of people really have any cultural
sensitivity. The rest smoke, litter, and have flags tattooed on their
ass and get drunk afterwards to celebrate their ball team winning a
game.

> Besides, I'm trying to tell you,
> that whatever traits of low-lifeness you see, going about and pointing
> to them is much more important trait than all of them combined.

LOL! I'll say...there should be a cultural equivalent of the Academie
Francaise....

> It's not political correctness. It's how it is. But do what you like,
> it's your life.
>

What are you talking about now???

> BTW - if flapping your flags around is a low-life trait than Americans
> must be one of the lowest. ;-)

Not compared to Puerto Ricans and European soccer fans! It's actually
surprising to see an American flag flying around, at least in NYC!

> What's your guess on that?

Why guess? It would be hard to court-martial someone in the middle of
a war, especially if that person is indeed killing the enemy, even if
only on his own terms.

> But I really don't want to be hard on this guy. Actually I love him,
> and I expect that our pilots did the same. He was an ace, however you
> count it, despite his nerves being totally wrecked. At one point he
> said that the only time he wasn't afraid was when he was flying a
> mission, and I really know how he felt. He probably ended committing
> suicide too.

You really know how he felt? How do you know?

I can only imagine that what he meant was that the adrenaline rush
takes over...I myself had a few near-death experiences, the most
recent one kayacking in the East River when a New York Pig Department
patrol boat jetted too close to me and made a big wave that capsized
me! I saw them coming and couldn't paddle away fast enough (needless
to say, the cops were driving the wrong way, as usual), but the
remarkable thing was that I didn't panic at all, I wasn't afraid,
something kicked in immediately once I realized what was going to
happen (which realization also kicked in immediately), and even when
under water and then dashed upon the rocks, I had no fear at all, but
somehow went into problem-solving mode...and I have no formal training
in this kind of thing, not even the infantry, really...but it just
happened, and it was kind of nice in a way, it felt good even though I
don't think there were any emotions involved!

There's a bit of that -- just a very slight bit -- when momentarily
"trapped" under the bar on your last rep and it's touch-and-go whether
you make that final rep or not, and somehow something clicks in your
head (yes, really, in the head, despite the appearance of muscular
failure) and you're able to heave and complete the lift....

> You forgot that by 1946 we were "officially" enemies. Ministry of Truth
> in Britain said so. Politics is an ugly little business.

Oh, was the victory parade in '46? I assumed you meant the ones
immediately after VE-Day, or even the grander ones after VJ-Day.

> Our Air Forces weren't that low. Somehow the survivors of Polish and
> French campaign managed to add to fourth Air Force in Europe, so we had
> some people.
>
> BTW - I found that German air loses during Polish campaign amounted to
> 40%. Not bad at all, wouldn't you say?

Yes, they say that Germany could have been easily defeated had the
French moved in from the west. Apparently, the Germans gave Poland
everything they had, whereas the Polish military had been split
between its two frontiers, roughly east and west.

Just goes to show how speed, not brawn, is the number one factor in
almost any fight.

> Tatars in general weren't interested in attacking our forces at all.
> They came for slaves,

Are you sure about that? Slaves?? They had such a big empire
already, they could have gotten slaves from anywhere else they already
controlled. I doubt they were after pretty Polish girls!

Actually, what the heck were the Mongols up to, anyway?? Such a far
way from home to go for anything...I mean, something like Rome versus
Greece, Rome versus Carthage, Rome versus Egypt, etc., kind of had a
reason to it: securing trade routes and natural resources. But the
Mongols?? They weren't building up cities, establishing economies --
were they? -- and doing things which required securing your
perimeter...they were goat-herders! Just what the heck were they
trying to achieve, exactly???

> so instead of concentrating their forces,
> besieging fortresses and trying to win battles they spread their forces
> and went after civilians. If you tried to oppose them by pressing for
> battle it was an exercise in futility. They just avoided your big army
> and went on with their pillaging business.

Ah, well, avoiding big armies and set-piece battles is actually the
first principle of warfare: mobility.

> Even in battle their tactics often involved feigned retreat.

Or, as per Sun Tzu's first dictum: all war is based on deception.

> They used
> to pretend to run away from you, waited until pursuers got disorganized
> and then turned against them.

Everybody did that! Oldest trick in the book. I hope that that's not
actually a complaint against the Mongols (like how the English said
the Native Americans fought "dirty" because they would shoot bows and
arrows from behind trees instead of marching into musket-fire on a
clear open field the way Europeans did at the time).

> Frontal attack didn't work well against Tatars.

Most frontal assaults are doomed. This is the second principle of
war, that defenders always have the advantage (all else being roughly
equal, of course). That's why all those Hollywood movies showing
soldiers charging at machine guns are 99% false (unless the charge was
a sacrificial feint, of course).

> You needed to split
> your forces too in such a way, that when Tatars feigned retreat from
> part of your army, the second part attacked them form the side, and
> feigned retreat could be turned into real panic.

Attacking the flanks is like the third principle of war (a direct
consequence of the second one above, of course). Everybody knew that.

> With raids it worked in a bit similar manner, but it would take a moment
> to explain too,

Did the Mongols actually drill? Having conquered China by then, with
its texts on military drills and maneuvers, I wonder if their fighting
style had changed from mounted raids to something more organized and
rehearsed....

> but it really was harder to catch Tatars than to beat
> them. They did run away from laughably small forces.

Maybe those routs were actually the feints you'd described?

> No, it wasn't. Armies left civilians alone for the most part.

They were left alone if they didn't put up resistance. Specifically,
if cities surrendered without a fight (the "open city" concept still
practiced even in WW II). From what I'd learned in school, the
Mongols were remarkably lenient in peace, not trying to force people
into new religions, or kicking out all the old rulers, etc.

> I never said that they were.

You were saying how I was repeating myths about the Mongols. A casual
perusal of that book "The Mongol Art of War" -- which, I say again, I
wasn't even looking for, it was suddenly right there, and only then
did I remember our conversation! -- seemed to have shown that my
history classes on the matter were correct (of course, this is an
American book, and perhaps Mongols are remembered differently in
Poland -- I know from my Intro to Russian History course that they are
remembered badly in Russia).

> And rightly so. Actually Viking and Tatar tactics weren't all that
> different, if you allow for a difference between drakkar and a horse.

Raiding parties are raiding parties. The Americans certainly claim
that of the Taliban, even while American special operations forces
stage just such limited forays themselves.

> Especially so called "children lovers". It didn't took much to become a
> children lover among Vikings. You just refused throwing kids in the air
> and splitting them with your sword. Tatars liked to practice their
> archery skills on captured slaves (probably damaged goods). I assume that
> if you refused to shoot at them you became a slave lover of sorts.

What??

That babies-on-a-pike thing is said all the time...the Germans were
said by the British to have practiced it on Belgian civvies in WW
I...the Japs are said to have done that to Chinese babies in WW II --
though their civilian newspapers did in fact publish "Imperial Army
beheading scores" like sports pages....

The Romans were brutal. Funny how the Romans are so fondly
remembered.

The Turks and Huns and Mongols would have been more respected if
they'd managed to stick around for a few hundred years. Thus, the
moral of the story: if you're going to do anything, do it BIG!

And make sure it lasts.

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Nov 6, 2:13 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 68 years and still ticking.

Um, Poland was occupied. Ah, I see, you're playing lawyers' games
here: the Polish government fled to London, and therefore never
actually surrendered.

> You got it wrong. It was the Poles who hardly fought Russians. Our
> forces were told to do not engage Russians, but some did anyway, of
> course. They even won some battles.

Yes, as I'd noted.

But it's simply the case that the Russians didn't fight the Polish
military much. They waited until the Germans won the war in Poland
before moving in.

> That's nonsense.

"American Heritage Pictorial History of World War II."

> German loses after the Russian invasion were higher
> than before.

I don't know about German losses being higher after the shooting
stopped, but we were talking about the Soviets.

> We _never_ surrendered to Hitler.

I don't know what you wish to mean by that, exactly...the army had to
stop fighting, and when it stopped, Poland was no more.

> He's right. Both British and Russian archives are still closed.

Why? What could possibly be in there?

Doesn't make sense. The Russians have even opened up their Soviet
archives to Western scholars...why would they keep shut only the
Polish files???

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Tue, 06 Nov 2007 o 18:20 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Nov 6, 3:11 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The truth is that most can't be low. It's mathematically highly
>> unlikely and practically impossible.
>
> Eh?
>
> There have been many sociological studies which showed that in any
> human organization, only like ~15% of the members actually get the
> real work done -- the rest are hangers-on types.

The cut-off between hanger-on and work-doer is quite arbitrary. I
wonder how come it was chosen to be 15%. Wasn't it a standard
deviation by any chance? ;-)

> That principle of the "small cadre" applies to cultural matters, too.
> Only a small percentage of people really have any cultural
> sensitivity.

As long as quasi Gaussian distribution applies to human societies,
that's what you'd expect.

> The rest smoke, litter, and have flags tattooed on their
> ass and get drunk afterwards to celebrate their ball team winning a
> game.

You know what? It's all culture.

[...]
>> Our Air Forces weren't that low. Somehow the survivors of Polish and
>> French campaign managed to add to fourth Air Force in Europe, so we had
>> some people.
>>
>> BTW - I found that German air loses during Polish campaign amounted to
>> 40%. Not bad at all, wouldn't you say?
>
> Yes, they say that Germany could have been easily defeated had the
> French moved in from the west. Apparently, the Germans gave Poland
> everything they had, whereas the Polish military had been split
> between its two frontiers, roughly east and west.

We didn't truly spread our forces. We weren't fighting Russians for
real. There was not even a hint of possibility of winning such a war,
so there were no plans for it.

> Just goes to show how speed, not brawn, is the number one factor in
> almost any fight.

Germans didn't use Blitzkrieg in Poland. They used their industrial
brawn, though.

>> Tatars in general weren't interested in attacking our forces at all.
>> They came for slaves,
>
> Are you sure about that? Slaves??

Definitely sure. They called it jasyr.

> They had such a big empire already,

Crimean Tatars didn't have a big empire.

> they could have gotten slaves from anywhere else they already
> controlled. I doubt they were after pretty Polish girls!

You haven't seen them, obviously. ;-)

> Actually, what the heck were the Mongols up to, anyway?? Such a far
> way from home to go for anything...

Poland isn't far from Crimea and it was much closer then.

> I mean, something like Rome versus
> Greece, Rome versus Carthage, Rome versus Egypt, etc., kind of had a
> reason to it: securing trade routes and natural resources. But the
> Mongols?? They weren't building up cities, establishing economies --
> were they?

Yes, they were.

> -- and doing things which required securing your
> perimeter...they were goat-herders! Just what the heck were they
> trying to achieve, exactly???

Getting rich on slavery, for example.

[...]
>> They used
>> to pretend to run away from you, waited until pursuers got disorganized
>> and then turned against them.
>
> Everybody did that!

Everybody could wish being able to pull it off. Mongols actually had
enough discipline to do it.

[...]
>> Frontal attack didn't work well against Tatars.
>
> Most frontal assaults are doomed. This is the second principle of
> war, that defenders always have the advantage (all else being roughly
> equal, of course). That's why all those Hollywood movies showing
> soldiers charging at machine guns are 99% false (unless the charge was
> a sacrificial feint, of course).

You obviously were a general, weren't you? ;-)

>> You needed to split
>> your forces too in such a way, that when Tatars feigned retreat from
>> part of your army, the second part attacked them form the side, and
>> feigned retreat could be turned into real panic.
>
> Attacking the flanks is like the third principle of war (a direct
> consequence of the second one above, of course). Everybody knew that.

A gifted general, to boot! ;-)

>> With raids it worked in a bit similar manner, but it would take a moment
>> to explain too,
>
> Did the Mongols actually drill?

Yes.

> Having conquered China by then, with
> its texts on military drills and maneuvers, I wonder if their fighting
> style had changed from mounted raids to something more organized and
> rehearsed....

The style didn't change (AFAICT). But you wrongly assume that what they
did was "disorganized". They were able to pull off some serious tricks.

>> but it really was harder to catch Tatars than to beat
>> them. They did run away from laughably small forces.
>
> Maybe those routs were actually the feints you'd described?

At times they were feinting, at other times they were obviously
panicking.

In general, our average cavalry could do what they wanted with Tatars,
as long as they could catch them. Our higher banners were most probably
the best cavalry in the world at the time, and it was them who scared
Tatars for real.

But in the west people were more scared with Tatars, so I know about at
least one example when our winged hussars pretended to be Tatars while
fighting against western forces. Funny as it is, that's what they did.
Running around, shouting hallah and shooting bows worked a treat at this
time.

[...]
>> I never said that they were.
>
> You were saying how I was repeating myths about the Mongols.

I said that you repeated a myth, not myths. And you did. One that
Europe was saved by a timely succession dispute among Mongols. I doub

[...]
>> Especially so called "children lovers". It didn't took much to become a
>> children lover among Vikings. You just refused throwing kids in the air
>> and splitting them with your sword. Tatars liked to practice their
>> archery skills on captured slaves (probably damaged goods). I assume that
>> if you refused to shoot at them you became a slave lover of sorts.
>
> What??
>
> That babies-on-a-pike thing is said all the time...the Germans were
> said by the British to have practiced it on Belgian civvies in WW
> I...the Japs are said to have done that to Chinese babies in WW II --
> though their civilian newspapers did in fact publish "Imperial Army
> beheading scores" like sports pages....
>
> The Romans were brutal. Funny how the Romans are so fondly
> remembered.
>
> The Turks and Huns and Mongols would have been more respected if
> they'd managed to stick around for a few hundred years. Thus, the
> moral of the story: if you're going to do anything, do it BIG!
>
> And make sure it lasts.

You missed the point, but I'm used to it by now. The point is that both
Vikings and Tatars attacked civilians, not armies. Both of them also
used excessive cruelty as a psychological weapon. Romans didn't do it
and Turks also didn't do it (beside customary sacking of besieged
cities).

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Tue, 06 Nov 2007 o 18:39 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Nov 6, 2:13 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> That's nonsense.
>
> "American Heritage Pictorial History of World War II."

You mean, you "read" a comics about it? ;-) I'm so impressed.

>> German loses after the Russian invasion were higher
>> than before.
>
> I don't know about German losses being higher after the shooting
> stopped,

It didn't stop for quite a while longer. That's why German losses were so
high. They controlled most of western Poland, but they didn't break most of
our forces. Our units were still operational and continued to fight for
about a month longer.

> but we were talking about the Soviets.
>
>> We _never_ surrendered to Hitler.
>
> I don't know what you wish to mean by that, exactly...the army had to
> stop fighting, and when it stopped, Poland was no more.

Surrender is surrender. France surrendered, Dutch surrendered, Norway
surrendered. We didn't.

>> He's right. Both British and Russian archives are still closed.
>
> Why? What could possibly be in there?
>
> Doesn't make sense. The Russians have even opened up their Soviet
> archives to Western scholars...why would they keep shut only the
> Polish files???

Not only the Polish files. Plenty of files from the time of WWII are
still closed.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Nov 6, 2:23 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> You mean, you "read" a comics about it? ;-) I'm so impressed.

Wow, if the "American Heritage Pictorial History of World War II" is
"comics" to you, then I'd suggest you fire your English teacher!

> It didn't stop for quite a while longer. That's why German losses were so
> high.

Um, what's "so high"? I know their losses for the entire Western
Front '40 was less than 30K men, and I can't imagine the Polish
campaign taking up too much more....

> They controlled most of western Poland, but they didn't break most of
> our forces. Our units were still operational and continued to fight for
> about a month longer.

All right and proper for Polish honor and manhood, no doubt, but the
country was lost and its people conquered. As the Komosol kid said to
the Polish kid defending Polish dignity and identity in "Europa
Europa," "Poland is no more!"

> Surrender is surrender. France surrendered, Dutch surrendered, Norway
> surrendered. We didn't.

That's news to the Germans, who noted how much help they got in
rounding up Polish Jews!

> Not only the Polish files. Plenty of files from the time of WWII are
> still closed.

Really??

Well, I suppose so...I don't think anyone knows exactly what happened
to Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg (sp?), who saved all those Jews
only to disappear behind the Iron Curtain....

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:39:47 -0800, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Nov 6, 2:13 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 68 years and still ticking.
>
>Um, Poland was occupied. Ah, I see, you're playing lawyers' games
>here: the Polish government fled to London, and therefore never
>actually surrendered.

Look, I like a good Polish joke as much as anyone, but equating Poles with *lawyers* is beyind the
pale.

>"American Heritage Pictorial History of World War II."

Aw, how cute -- he takes his history from a coloring book.

>> He's right. Both British and Russian archives are still closed.
>
>Why? What could possibly be in there?

Their technology for breaking the Enigma (later shared with Blechley, IIRC), ...

On Nov 6, 2:03 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> The cut-off between hanger-on and work-doer is quite arbitrary. I
> wonder how come it was chosen to be 15%. Wasn't it a standard
> deviation by any chance? ;-)

Something like that. Not exactly 15%, mind you -- ~15%: take or give
some.

> As long as quasi Gaussian distribution applies to human societies,
> that's what you'd expect.

I don't know what's a "quasi Gaussian distribution" (sorry, I only
know Stats 101 stuff from college), but I hope it makes more sense to
you now.

> You know what? It's all culture.

Low culture, hence "low-life." Basically, a lower life form, almost.
Like, I wouldn't want to be bald, but I don't mistake my hair for my
brains!

> We didn't truly spread our forces. We weren't fighting Russians for
> real. There was not even a hint of possibility of winning such a war,
> so there were no plans for it.

I'd read that the forces were split, but that defeat was recognized to
be inevitable unless Britain and France kicked in some aid.

> Germans didn't use Blitzkrieg in Poland. They used their industrial
> brawn, though.

WHUH?????????

Sure they blitzed in Poland; Poland is mainly plains, I read, except
in the south somewhere.

> Definitely sure. They called it jasyr.
>
> Crimean Tatars didn't have a big empire.
>
> You haven't seen them, obviously. ;-)

I have, I live in NYC, remember? If it ain't here, it doesn't exist!

Okay, well, I was talking about Mongols, Huns, and all those Asiatic
horsemen in general...whatever were they after, galloping westwards
century after century???

> Poland isn't far from Crimea and it was much closer then.

In any case, WHAT DID THEY WANT????

> Yes, they were.

Well, Mongolia isn't exactly known for its cities, now or back
then...I wonder if those barbarians simply got drunk on fermented
goat's milk and decided, why not, let's see how much we can take....

> Getting rich on slavery, for example.

I don't know...raids, okay, but whole wars, campaigns, that last from
year to year??

> Everybody could wish being able to pull it off. Mongols actually had
> enough discipline to do it.

They must have had some kind of discipline -- which is why I figured
their leaders must have been literate enough for administrative tasks,
given the large armies fielded -- but that ol' pretending-to-break
ruse is extremely old. It's even in the Bible, with Joshua and his
conquest of Canaan.

> You obviously were a general, weren't you? ;-)

No one does a frontal assault, man, unless he's got no choice or he's
trying to bullshit the enemy. (After disrupting the flanks, yes, the
guys tying down the enemy's frontal defense can then assault, because
that frontal defense has been left unsupported by the flanks...but
that's an "incidental" frontal assault, not an "intentional" one....)

> A gifted general, to boot! ;-)

Well, common sense appears to be wisdom to a fool.... =P~~~

> Yes.
>
> The style didn't change (AFAICT). But you wrongly assume that what they
> did was "disorganized". They were able to pull off some serious tricks.

You assume I'm thinking "disorganized" when I merely marvel at the
level of their organization, given their barbaric status otherwise.

> At times they were feinting, at other times they were obviously
> panicking.
>
> In general, our average cavalry could do what they wanted with Tatars,
> as long as they could catch them. Our higher banners were most probably
> the best cavalry in the world at the time, and it was them who scared
> Tatars for real.

Hmmm. What time period are we talking about? Seems to me we might be
talking about quite different peoples here. You seem particularly
fixated on Crimean Tartars, whereas I'm talking mainly about the
Mongols, though I also have in mind those Asian/Eurasian steppe nomads
in general.

> But in the west people were more scared with Tatars, so I know about at
> least one example when our winged hussars pretended to be Tatars while
> fighting against western forces. Funny as it is, that's what they did.
> Running around, shouting hallah and shooting bows worked a treat at this
> time.

Hmmm. How do you know all this?

> I said that you repeated a myth, not myths. And you did. One that
> Europe was saved by a timely succession dispute among Mongols. I doub

What?? That's the standard history! Where are you getting your
information from???

> You missed the point, but I'm used to it by now.

Hey, I raise a specific matter, and you go all over the place, and you
tell me I'm missing the point??

> The point is that both
> Vikings and Tatars attacked civilians, not armies.

I'm not sure what that means. I think you have the civilians' naivete
concerning targets in war. Indeed, the civilian/military distinction
is a very modern concept.

> Both of them also
> used excessive cruelty as a psychological weapon. Romans didn't do it

Are you kidding?? The Romans were widely reviled for being cruel --
ever heard of crucifixion???

> and Turks also didn't do it (beside customary sacking of besieged
> cities).

Siege warfare was standard before cannons. If you equate that with
"cruelty," then the Romans were certainly most cruel by your
criterion, being renowned for their siege warfare.

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Tue, 06 Nov 2007 o 22:33 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Nov 6, 2:23 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You mean, you "read" a comics about it? ;-) I'm so impressed.
>
> Wow, if the "American Heritage Pictorial History of World War II" is
> "comics" to you, then I'd suggest you fire your English teacher!

Well, it looks like a comics, you have to admit it. ;-)

>> It didn't stop for quite a while longer. That's why German losses were so
>> high.
>
> Um, what's "so high"?

German losses after Russian invasion were higher than before. That's
at least "kinda high", if you take in account that American Heritage
authoritatively decided that shooting already stopped. They probably
stabbed them all, or trampled, or maybe farted viciously in their
general direction, but they somehow inflicted sizable damage.

[...]
>> Surrender is surrender. France surrendered, Dutch surrendered, Norway
>> surrendered. We didn't.
>
> That's news to the Germans, who noted how much help they got in
> rounding up Polish Jews!

What I'm supposed to get from this comment? Germans didn't know that we
never surrendered to them, so they could use our help (?) in rounding up
Polish Jews?

It looks like some total nonsense, but I'll simply note that Poles are
the most numerous nation on "The Just Among the Nations" list. You get
there for helping Jews survive, which meant risking the life of you and
your family.

>> Not only the Polish files. Plenty of files from the time of WWII are
>> still closed.
>
> Really??
>
> Well, I suppose so...I don't think anyone knows exactly what happened
> to Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg (sp?), who saved all those Jews
> only to disappear behind the Iron Curtain....

Are you trying to be truly offending, or I somehow got the wrong idea
this time?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Tue, 06 Nov 2007 o 23:06 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Nov 6, 2:03 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Germans didn't use Blitzkrieg in Poland. They used their industrial
>> brawn, though.
>
> WHUH?????????
>
> Sure they blitzed in Poland; Poland is mainly plains, I read, except
> in the south somewhere.

No, they didn't. They used normal encirclements, artillery barrages and
all that classical stuff.

[...]
>> Poland isn't far from Crimea and it was much closer then.
>
> In any case, WHAT DID THEY WANT????

Crimea, for example. It's a nice place to settle.

[...]
>> Getting rich on slavery, for example.
>
> I don't know...raids, okay, but whole wars, campaigns, that last from
> year to year??

Tatars alone didn't do that kind of wars. They were used by Turks and
once by Cossacks, but they didn't have enough strength to fight us.

>> Everybody could wish being able to pull it off. Mongols actually had
>> enough discipline to do it.
>
> They must have had some kind of discipline -- which is why I figured
> their leaders must have been literate enough for administrative tasks,
> given the large armies fielded -- but that ol' pretending-to-break
> ruse is extremely old. It's even in the Bible, with Joshua and his
> conquest of Canaan.

Like everything else in strategy or tactics. It's as old as wars, which
translates to as old as humans.

[...]
>> Yes.
>>
>> The style didn't change (AFAICT). But you wrongly assume that what they
>> did was "disorganized". They were able to pull off some serious tricks.
>
> You assume I'm thinking "disorganized" when I merely marvel at the
> level of their organization, given their barbaric status otherwise.

You don't need writing to train a unit of army. Most soldiers couldn't
write as late as 19th century, so it's no problem, obviously. You need
writing to organize a state (taxes) and logistics, to a lesser degree.

>> At times they were feinting, at other times they were obviously
>> panicking.
>>
>> In general, our average cavalry could do what they wanted with Tatars,
>> as long as they could catch them. Our higher banners were most probably
>> the best cavalry in the world at the time, and it was them who scared
>> Tatars for real.
>
> Hmmm. What time period are we talking about? Seems to me we might be
> talking about quite different peoples here. You seem particularly
> fixated on Crimean Tartars, whereas I'm talking mainly about the
> Mongols, though I also have in mind those Asian/Eurasian steppe nomads
> in general.

We know way more about Crimean Tatars than medieval Mongols, because they
lasted around here till Stalin. In the period I'm talking about (which
would be 15th-17th century) they still used the same tactics as earlier
Mongols. Our horsemen also didn't change their approach to warfare
much. Best guys carried pistol or two, but not many. Pistols fit to
use with one hand on a horseback were very expensive.

It's simply easier to compare horsemen from much better known history
period, even if western historians aren't especially familiar with this
topic.

>> But in the west people were more scared with Tatars, so I know about at
>> least one example when our winged hussars pretended to be Tatars while
>> fighting against western forces. Funny as it is, that's what they did.
>> Running around, shouting hallah and shooting bows worked a treat at this
>> time.
>
> Hmmm. How do you know all this?

This I read in a post of some Winged Hussar aficionado. He dug it up
somewhere in the sources.

>> I said that you repeated a myth, not myths. And you did. One that
>> Europe was saved by a timely succession dispute among Mongols. I doub
>
> What?? That's the standard history! Where are you getting your
> information from???

You mean that I can't disagree with this particular myth?

[...]
>> Both of them also
>> used excessive cruelty as a psychological weapon. Romans didn't do it
>
> Are you kidding?? The Romans were widely reviled for being cruel --
> ever heard of crucifixion???

Romans generally didn't crucify women and children. Crucifixion in itself
is cruel by modern standards, what Vikings and Tatars did was cruel by
the standards of times when people could be tortured, burned or impaled
for relatively slight reasons.

[...]
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R