Happy Columbus Day

[Ivanhoe]

[bojan]

7 hours ago, rmgill said:

How well does a wood sword with jade or steel obsidian blades set in it do against a breastplate? Or a morion? Not well. 

Spanish often discarded their breastplates in favor of gambesons and quilted coats. Some also never had breastplate, because even "munition quality" ones were equivalent to a 1/2 to a yearly vage of the skilled craftsman.

Marions were more optimized for European type mass combat (especially pike formations, where primary threat came from horsemen striking from above), which is why they survived so long, until late 1600s. For skirmish level actions it was far from ideal helmet, lacking any kind of face or neck protection.

Quote

How does a steel sword do against wood and feathers as armor, quite well. 

No sword does well vs wood. Even half inch wood plate will stop almost every sword blow. Problem of wooden armor is it's endurance, because failure mode for wood is breaking and splintering, but experiments done said it was pretty good for a single engagement. Shields have been made from relatively lightweight wood construction and successfully used as most important piece of armor for centuries. Yes, they needed constant repairs, but could stand almost any blow, something no armor before heavy plates could do.

 

Spanish were (mostly) winning because they picked their fights and allies, their armor helped but was not in any way decisive.

[Yama]

15 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

replying to Yama above:

Have you ever read about what the indigenous population of the Americas did to each other and even their own peoples?

I have read quite a bit, yes. I'm not under any 'noble savage' illusions. And I am quite against about judging characters of the past by modern standards of morality.

But Columbus was a monster, and his crew were thugs, even by standards of the day. Which is what eventually brought about his downfall. A letter has survived where one of Columbus' mates brags how Columbus had given him a native woman as a gift, and he beat her up and raped her.

[Yama]

18 hours ago, rmgill said:

Sure, power, medicine, steel, communications, literature...what's not to love.

Say aliens invade Earth, kill off 90% of humans, wipe out all our religions and philosophies, destroy most of our culture and written records...

...but they would leave the survivors some advanced technology. Would you celebrate the day of their arrival and name your kid or country after their leader?

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Happy John Cabot day!

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Yama said:

And I am quite against about judging characters of the past by modern standards of morality.

 

1 hour ago, Yama said:

But Columbus was a monster, and his crew were thugs, even by standards of the day.

Do you even read what you type or do the words mean something different to you? 

[rmgill]

56 minutes ago, Yama said:

Say aliens invade Earth, kill off 90% of humans, wipe out all our religions and philosophies, destroy most of our culture and written records...

...but they would leave the survivors some advanced technology. Would you celebrate the day of their arrival and name your kid or country after their leader?

Do you think that germ warfare was understood in the 1500’s? 
 

You do realize that the transmission of disease was entirely unintentional. 
 

Influenza and a host of other diseases spread through the new world like wild fire along every trading path that existed between the various nations. As well as when one tribe raided another because they were suddenly weak (likely from those diseases)  and ripe for the taking. 
 

If the west is to blame as a whole and through out time, who then should we in the west blame for the black death? Or the Plague of Justinian? Do we get to apply that guilt in perpetuity? 
 

Likewise Yama, can we blame YOU for the actions of your Norse ancestors and what they did all through Europe?

[NickM]

1 hour ago, Yama said:

Say aliens invade Earth, kill off 90% of humans, wipe out all our religions and philosophies, destroy most of our culture and written records...

...but they would leave the survivors some advanced technology. Would you celebrate the day of their arrival and name your kid or country after their leader?

 

Did these aliens invade before or after we cut out the hearts of our neighbors and ate their children? One could call it a Divine retribution 

Edited October 14, 2025 by NickM

[NickM]

21 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Do you think that germ warfare was understood in the 1500’s? 
 

You do realize that the transmission of disease was entirely unintentional. 
 

Influenza and a host of other diseases spread through the new world like wild fire along every trading path that existed between the various nations. As well as when one tribe raided another because they were suddenly weak (likely from those diseases)  and ripe for the taking. 
 

If the west is to blame as a whole and through out time, who then should we in the west blame for the black death? Or the Plague of Justinian? Do we get to apply that guilt in perpetuity? 
 

Likewise Yama, can we blame YOU for the actions of your Norse ancestors and what they did all through Europe?

And anyway,  dint the injuns give euros the clap?

[Stuart Galbraith]

21 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Do you think that germ warfare was understood in the 1500’s? 
 

You do realize that the transmission of disease was entirely unintentional. 
 

Influenza and a host of other diseases spread through the new world like wild fire along every trading path that existed between the various nations. As well as when one tribe raided another because they were suddenly weak (likely from those diseases)  and ripe for the taking. 
 

If the west is to blame as a whole and through out time, who then should we in the west blame for the black death? Or the Plague of Justinian? Do we get to apply that guilt in perpetuity? 
 

Likewise Yama, can we blame YOU for the actions of your Norse ancestors and what they did all through Europe?

Or indeed all those American servicemen in WW1 for bringing over the Spanish flu.

 

[Stargrunt6]

3 hours ago, bojan said:

Spanish often discarded their breastplates in favor of gambesons and quilted coats. Some also never had breastplate, because even "munition quality" ones were equivalent to a 1/2 to a yearly vage of the skilled craftsman.

Marions were more optimized for European type mass combat (especially pike formations, where primary threat came from horsemen striking from above), which is why they survived so long, until late 1600s. For skirmish level actions it was far from ideal helmet, lacking any kind of face or neck protection.

No sword does well vs wood. Even half inch wood plate will stop almost every sword blow. Problem of wooden armor is it's endurance, because failure mode for wood is breaking and splintering, but experiments done said it was pretty good for a single engagement. Shields have been made from relatively lightweight wood construction and successfully used as most important piece of armor for centuries. Yes, they needed constant repairs, but could stand almost any blow, something no armor before heavy plates could do.

 

Spanish were (mostly) winning because they picked their fights and allies, their armor helped but was not in any way decisive.

I'd imagine wooden shields are much easier and faster to make than metal ones, by a mile. 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Or indeed all those American servicemen in WW1 for bringing over the Spanish flu.

 

No, blame the Europeans for giving it to our Doughboys. 

[rmgill]

4 hours ago, bojan said:

Spanish often discarded their breastplates in favor of gambesons and quilted coats. Some also never had breastplate, because even "munition quality" ones were equivalent to a 1/2 to a yearly vage of the skilled craftsman.

Marions were more optimized for European type mass combat (especially pike formations, where primary threat came from horsemen striking from above), which is why they survived so long, until late 1600s. For skirmish level actions it was far from ideal helmet, lacking any kind of face or neck protection.

 

Think of the context of the combat though. A soldier used to wearing armor and taking blows on the armor covering a vital spot is going to be at an advantage against a lesser unamored foe not used to thinking about and placing blows on weak spots. 
 

Simply stabbing for the vitals on a soldier wearing a chest plate will get you nowhere. Where as that same soldier will chop for the neck with his sword. Or make thrust with his sword. You can’t thrust very well with a wooden sword with combs of obsidion. 

4 hours ago, bojan said:

No sword does well vs wood. Even half inch wood plate will stop almost every sword blow.

if its flexible at all its going to have gaps. How does that work vs a thrust. 
 

You have the simple fact that a small number of spaniards went through a large number of native Americans with stone aged tribal tactics. 
 

If wood is so effective against swords, why did we not see it in widespread use in Europe aside from shields? 

 

4 hours ago, bojan said:

Spanish were (mostly) winning because they picked their fights and allies, their armor helped but was not in any way decisive.

Yes. Where you fight is also important. Choosing your battleground well is vital. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

33 minutes ago, rmgill said:

No, blame the Europeans for giving it to our Doughboys. 

Yeah, that is probably fair actually. Recent evidence suggests it was chickens consumed on the Western front, which createda  pandemic that was passed to American doctors, that took it home, passed it onto soldiers training up, and then went back across the atlantic. Basically a pandemic of the kind Fauchi would have salivated about 

[bojan]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

...if its flexible at all its going to have gaps. How does that work vs a thrust. 

Very well. Don't forget that wooden shields were made to protect vs most common infantry weapon - spear, able to generate much higher impact forces than trust with sword.

Quote

You have the simple fact that a small number of spaniards went through a large number of native Americans with stone aged tribal tactics. 

What is most often not said is how decisive firearms (and crossbows...) were and that Spanish most often had help by other locals (as I have noted picked allies carefully).

Quote

If wood is so effective against swords, why did we not see it in widespread use in Europe aside from shields? 

"Aside from that, how was your evening Mrs. Lincoln?"

One can not emphasize how important shields were in the warfare until full plate armor appeared. And even after plate armor appeared then were used for specific purposes, like Spanish rodeleros, storming parties in sieges etc. And by everyone else who could not afford plate armor... which was 95% of the people.

Wood was not used in Europe for body armor because cloth gambesons served same function - cheap, widely affordable armor. They were less capable than wooden alternative, but were more comfortable, easier to make, more durable and easier to repair.

3 hours ago, Stargrunt6 said:

I'd imagine wooden shields are much easier and faster to make than metal ones, by a mile. 

Even "metal" shields were wooden with thin layer of metal, sometimes only reinforcements at the boss and rim. Only smaller bucklers were made completely from metal. Reason is weight, most European shield fighting techniques have shield pretty far from a body, with partially or fully outstretched arm, and heavy shield is not good for that. Only specific roles used heavier shields - heavy infantry (like French pavisiers) and crossbowmen, but even there construction was most often wooden.

[rmgill]

I am not talking shields. I am talking armor, worn armor. 

And steel swords, spears, bolt heads and other weapons are far superior. 
 

Cloth armor has a place but steel accessories make it better. 

 

Edited October 14, 2025 by rmgill

[Ivanhoe]

https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/10/12/columbus-day-celebrates-our-civilization/
 

Quote

 

Battles over Columbus Day aren’t really about Christopher Columbus at all—they’re about whether America should exist.

“Columbus’s journey carried thousands of years of wisdom, philosophy, reason, and culture across the Atlantic into the Americas—paving the way for the ultimate triumph of Western civilization less than three centuries later on July 4, 1776,” President Donald Trump says in his Columbus Day proclamation.

Yet that’s why the holiday has so many enemies.

 

 

Quote

 

Columbus didn’t introduce slavery to the Americas—the natives already had that evil institution before Europeans came.

He did, however, set in motion the end of the New World’s own characteristic horrors, such as the Aztecs’ human sacrifices and the cannibalism practiced by the Caribs.

 

Leftists who criticize Columbus but not the vastly more violent sociopaths in the western hemisphere expose their true natures. 

[Yama]

4 hours ago, NickM said:

Did these aliens invade before or after we cut out the hearts of our neighbors and ate their children? One could call it a Divine retribution 

I'm sure they'll take a good look at Gaza, Ukraine, Darfur etc. and justify their actions with similar arguments...

[Yama]

4 hours ago, NickM said:

And anyway,  dint the injuns give euros the clap?

Syphilis? Yes it is thought so, as first known Syphilis outbreak in Europe took place immediately after Columbus' first voyage returned. The picture is somewhat complicated though, as related diseases (but far less severe) did exist in Old World before it. So it's possible the timing was just weird coincidence.

[Yama]

16 hours ago, Mr King said:

If people want to tear down Columbus and his ilk for their behavior, then we get to have an honest discussion about the horrors the natives inflicted on their own kind. If their places had been reversed the natives would have done the same as Columbus and those that followed him.

Well, such tends to be the human nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_Islands#History

Any way, all 'civilized' peoples have been at one point considered as 'savages' by their neighbours. I don't think that justifies one thing or another.

[Yama]

4 hours ago, rmgill said:

Do you think that germ warfare was understood in the 1500’s?

You do realize that the transmission of disease was entirely unintentional.

That perhaps was, but forced labour and displacement, which greatly contributed to the natives poor resistance to diseases, was not.

4 hours ago, rmgill said:

Likewise Yama, can we blame YOU for the actions of your Norse ancestors and what they did all through Europe?

I don't have Norse ancestors.

Anyway, I don't believe in generational guilt, and I am not blaming anyone living today from what Columbus did. What has happened happened, I am just baffled why somebody would see him as some sort of heroic figure - but then modern Mongols still worship Genghis Khan, Italians think Julius Caesar was awesome and so on...

 

 

[NickM]

44 minutes ago, Yama said:

I'm sure they'll take a good look at Gaza, Ukraine, Darfur etc. and justify their actions with similar arguments...

Nah. The recipients of the bad mojo might just pause and think "are we the baddies?"

Anyways Gaza Ukraine and Darfur didn't exist back then

Edited October 14, 2025 by NickM

[bojan]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

I am not talking shields. I am talking armor, worn armor. 

Shields are armor, in fact most common and most important piece of armor used by armies. They were more important than armor worn on body, to the point that in some cases "states" (king or whoever was well enough) started trying to provide those via mass manufacture vs relying on locals to procure it, as they did with the rest of armor. Italians (at that moment at forefront of military developments), for example provided city militia with helmet, shield and spears/pikes, while other armor, side-arms (usually swords, but also other types) were on expense of militiamen. This all shows how important shields were. And yet... they remained wooden, with only rim and boss reinforcements (and sometimes even less).

Shields were also expected to be take heavier blows than any armor before plate, especially blunt impacts (where cloth, mail and early composite plates were very weak) and heavy axe blows, which were popular because their impact turned into blunt force trauma if impacting mail.

It is all ofc consequence of various causes - availability, providing everyone with shield and spear (both cheap and easy to make) gave you more than providing 1/100th of that number with quality armor and swords. And wooden shields were just good enough to do their job, sometimes even better than underlaying armor.

 

There is a simple experiment - take 1/2 or 1" plank and try to hack it with a small axe (war axes were pretty light) across grain. Try to stab it with something. It is surprisingly resilient, especially if two thinner boards were laid grain across each other and glued together.

There is no reason that 1/2" wooden armor on chest would be pretty effective in stopping sword blows. Less effective than plate for sure, but still pretty effective protection. Gambesons were pretty effective for that purpose after all (there are multiple vids of modern experiments)...

 

[Yama]

2 hours ago, NickM said:

Anyways Gaza Ukraine and Darfur didn't exist back then

I'm quite sure they did...(well, unsure when Gaza was established). Anyway, seems my metaphor wasn't very clear.

[Yama]

18 hours ago, R011 said:

Contact with the wider world would have changed the culture of indigenous people even if European didn't act like just about all people did back then, including Native People.

And if Europeans didn't subjugate the Americas, what would keep Asian powers from doing so?  I don't think being conquered by China would be an improvement.

"Discovery" of New World was inevitable, if Columbus didn't make his trip, somebody else would have, with roughly similar end results. So timescale might have been delayed few years, or decade or two at most. After all, Europeans had already visited America some 500 years earlier, and apparently Polynesians had also reached South America from the other side.

However, I think Native Americans were perhaps unlucky in that "discovery" happened when there were many powerful European maritime powers in position to take advantage of it. Had the contact been more gradual, maybe the effects of the invasions, immigration and diseases would not have led to so quick collapse of native societies. Say if the Norse had maintained their NA settlements through Little Ice Age - they would have spread the awareness of the continent and kept contact, but without technology and population to subjugate the natives completely.