General History Questions thread

matmohair1

Marquis
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Indeed, while temples are built to survive for longer at specific locations, villages and towns could be abandoned and
rebuilt elsewhere, time and time again, allowing the inhabitants to migrate and adapt with environmental and topographic changes.

Such examples include the construction of canals or dams, floods, droughts, or even rivers naturally changing course. What was once
previously thought to be signs of ghost towns or civilizational collapse, is now mostly revealed to be simply, people adapting and changing
with the times. When simply going with the flow isn't worth it on the long run...

Extent and major sites of the Indus Valley Civilisation 3000 BC



2010 Pakistan floods



Channel changes in the Mississippi river near the Old River Control Structure, Louisiana



The Classic Mayan Drought theory, 8th and 9th centuries



Mayan territory and settlements until 1500

 

AreJohn

Duke
Best answers
0
Thoughts on the idea that a cataclysmic event involving a comet hitting greenland in the center of an ice cap, causing sudden massive sea level rises and an effective volcanic winter around 12,000 years ago, caused the downfall of pre (What we now know as neolithic) human civilisation which has been argued to be pretty advanced in a pre-electricity sense?
 

reza

Sergeant
Best answers
0
hmm i see, so there is no way to know the form of these civilization everyday building eh? like their villager house/hut, or their rich people houses
 

AreJohn

Duke
Best answers
0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe What we do know is that they were really, really good at astronomy.
 

Almalexia

Her Flamboyance, the Calipha
Duke
M&BWBNW
Best answers
0
Wiggy, they're talking about something else.  :lol:

yalazur said:
hmm i see, so there is no way to know the form of these civilization everyday building eh? like their villager house/hut, or their rich people houses
Well we can get an overall idea of their settlement patterns through LiDAR scans overall the surrounding landscape, for instance revealing Angkor to be the largest urban conglomerate of the pre-modern era by area;
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29245289

But otherwise, for extant examples of residential buildings we are rather bereft, but it should be noted that the concept of a building, in its location, construction, and design is often more important than the original materials used to build it in (I hate to generalize) SE Asia and East Asia. Thus reconstruction and renovation is a common fact in the life of a building, and while styles can change over time, you can still get something of an idea of the appearance of how they might've looked by the more recent constructions. That said, for the more common architecture for the average person, the utilitarian adaptions to the environment lend itself to commonality across centuries, while for palaces, as mentioned the stonework is believed to parallel the style of wooden architecture; meaning you can still get an idea of what the residential architecture looked like from the extant stone architecture, at least in its elements.

Hope this is helpful!
 

Jhessail

Panzervixen
Master Knight
Best answers
0
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL said:
You often see WW1 and WW2 newsreel footage of soldiers bayonet charging or running behind tanks. You sometimes see men dropping down dead or explosions happening close to things. How real are these?
Completely staged. 100% fake.

AmateurHetman said:
I feel like it depends.
It does not.

AmateurHetman said:
But D-Day was well documented by the Americans
No it wasn't.

Any and every newsreel showing combat from WW2 is staged. It simply was not possible to bring the extremely bulky cameras of the era to the battlefield. Even photography was very limited and many of the most famous WW2 pictures are actually staged.
 

Jhessail

Panzervixen
Master Knight
Best answers
0
That is true.

If we want to be pedantic, then there are many photographs and newsreel "action" bits that are re-staged or re-enactments of actual events. Others are staged in the "spirit of things". Yet others are completely made up. But whether that makes a difference is another matter.
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
Best answers
8
Jhessail said:
Any and every newsreel showing combat from WW2 is staged. It simply was not possible to bring the extremely bulky cameras of the era to the battlefield. Even photography was very limited and many of the most famous WW2 pictures are actually staged.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/us/norman-hatch-dead-filmed-war-in-the-pacific.html
There is also a reasonable amount of real footage of aerial and naval combat, taken at a distance.
 

😂😂😂

Archduke
WBNW
Best answers
0
Jhessail said:
Any and every newsreel showing combat from WW2 is staged. It simply was not possible to bring the extremely bulky cameras of the era to the battlefield. Even photography was very limited and many of the most famous WW2 pictures are actually staged.
The De Vry Standard 35mm film camera used by the British in WW2 was 10 inches long.

 

Jhessail

Panzervixen
Master Knight
Best answers
0
That's what we call a technically correct but practically useless addition to a discussion. Yes, you're correct and no, it doesn't change my argument substantially.

Because

A) it was only used by the British and the last I checked, there were quite a few participants in the WW2 aside from the British,

and

B) if I was completely wrong and all countries had small, portable film cameras widely in use, we would have thousands of hours of actual combat footage. Which we don't have.

The exceptions are generally well known, like the sinking of HMS Barham:

Then there is gun-cam footage from air planes, which of course is real. There's real footage shot from a distance of infantry attacking  fixed positions both from British and American POV. There's real footage of real soldiers taking a break during a battle. There's real footage of real tanks driving through real burning ruins. And so on.

But if you see a clip of a soldier firing their gun, it's staged. Censorship was very strong in every country during the period and censors would never allow pictures or film of people actually dying to be shown to the public and why would a cameraman risk their life shooting something that would never be seen by anyone else? Not to mention that they often were barred from the very front lines and forced to remain among rear areas.

Which brings us back to my original point: does it matter? In every case, the people filmed weren't actors using blanks on a stage.

EDIT: it's also important to remember that the combat reporters weren't there to document the truth or the reality of the war, they were there to gather propaganda material. There were actual journalists who wanted to do the former but many journalists were also swept up by nationalistic fervour.
 

Captured Joe

Marquis
Best answers
0
But how about footage of artillery fire, like this:
Seems quite convincing to me, and it wouldn't be that difficult to film I think.

Also, I love those Katyusha barrages. :grin:
 

Jhessail

Panzervixen
Master Knight
Best answers
0
Captured Joe said:
But how about footage of artillery fire, like this:
Seems quite convincing to me, and it wouldn't be that difficult to film I think.

Also, I love those Katyusha barrages. :grin:
Yes, that is real. There's loads of footage of artillery firing which is 100% real.

The original question was:
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL said:
You often see WW1 and WW2 newsreel footage of soldiers bayonet charging or running behind tanks. You sometimes see men dropping down dead or explosions happening close to things. How real are these?
While the question is already somewhat misleading, using "often" and "sometimes" and so on, his question in the general sense is valid. And I was answering that specific case - of land/ground close combat. My original post didn't make that blatantly clear as I thought the context was enough but clearly, I was mistaken and the context was not sufficiently obvious.

Is that snarky enough?  :wink:
 

😂😂😂

Archduke
WBNW
Best answers
0
I have no idea if there is real combat footage or not and I don't care, but your claim that cameras were too bulky to carry onto a battlefield is completely wrong. Absolutely and phenomenally wrong.


 

Jhessail

Panzervixen
Master Knight
Best answers
0
I guess I should be glad that the two of you provide an excellent opportunity for me to talk about perspective and a comprehensive understanding of an issue. Because both 上原亜衣 and Χρήσιμος Ηλίθιος are completely lost when it comes to the actual point - the answering of the question that Kentucky James made.

上原亜衣 said:
I have no idea if there is real combat footage or not and I don't care
Then why the **** are you posting in here? Because that was the exact question.

上原亜衣 said:
but your claim that cameras were too bulky to carry onto a battlefield is completely wrong. Absolutely and phenomenally wrong.
Except it isn't. Yes, there were some portable cameras, yet they weren't in widespread use. They had plentiful technical issues - some were really expensive, others were really bad quality, most were not suited for battlefield conditions and broke down, and so on. That you Googled a few camera types that existed does not actually make an argument.

上原亜衣 said:
There were 256 Soviet cameramen in total on the frontlines during that war
And this quote is the perfect proof of that. You're claiming that 256 Soviet cameramen prove that portable cameras were commonly in use, and that proves that there are thousands of hours of recorded, authentic ground combat footage. Except it does not prove anything. Because you have no clue of the big picture. The Great Patriotic War lasted for four years and had 26.6 million lives lost. The front line was over 1,500 km long and involved several millions of troops on both sides - and you're claiming that 256 cameramen made a significant contribution? Oh, my ****ing gawd. Well then, please provide us with the hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of authentic close combat footage these 256 cameramen filmed. Because if you can't do that, you're nothing but a ****poster.

Χρήσιμος Ηλίθιος said:
Google is your friend. 100% fake cameras, I suppose.
How about you -snip- because google says:
"The large dimensions of the Moy & Bastie when mounted on its associated tripod, made it very cumbersome. Those operating the camera became easy targets for enemy snipers."
"The AFPU filmed in every British theatre of operations"
"However, the camera was not widely used and only came into service late in the war"
"However, it was also cumbersome. Both the camera and the film rolls it used were heavy and, in order to shoot steady footage, a tripod was needed"
"camera was used by Royal Navy"
and the last camera is a modern model used in Afghanistan since 2000. Jesus ****ing Christ, the standards around here have definitely dropped.

So yes, I still stand by my first post - cameras, IN GENERAL, were too cumbersome to be used in battlefield conditions. The few cameras that were portable enough, didn't really make that much of a difference in the GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS and combined with wartime censorship, we can safely conclude that any film of ground combat, bayonet charges, and other similar close combat stuff, are 100% staged.


 

😂😂😂

Archduke
WBNW
Best answers
0
Flail about all you like. You are plainly wrong in claiming that cameras were too bulky to use on a battlefield.

Jhessail said:
you're claiming that 256 cameramen made a significant contribution?
I literally never even came remotely close to claiming that. Are you touched or deliberately attempting to strawman me?

Jhessail said:
You're claiming that 256 Soviet cameramen prove that portable cameras were commonly in use, and that proves that there are thousands of hours of recorded, authentic ground combat footage.
I never said anything even remotely close to that. I never said they were common. I never said they filmed combat. I never said they were even turned on.

Do you drink before posting?