Happy Columbus Day

[Yama]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

Shields are armor, in fact most common and most important piece of armor used by armies.

On that subject, Vikings had steel weapons and armour (mail), and metal reinforced shields, yet they were eventually driven off by Native Americans who had more primitive weapons than the Aztecs or Inca had. So clearly metal weapons and armour didn't make them invulnerable.

[sunday]

Edgy Yama is happy Yama.

Let him be happy.

[NickM]

On 10/14/2025 at 6:19 PM, Yama said:

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

Nyet, it was not.

 

And ANYWAYS I don't think Gaza Darfu and Ukraine were 'wracked by war' back in the 1400s--unless the Islamist armies were doing it. 

Edited October 16, 2025 by NickM

[Stargrunt6]

6 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

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

 

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

Those who criticize Columbus would never dare saying a bad word about Martin Luther King. 

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Yama said:

On that subject, Vikings had steel weapons and armour (mail), and metal reinforced shields, yet they were eventually driven off by Native Americans who had more primitive weapons than the Aztecs or Inca had. So clearly metal weapons and armour didn't make them invulnerable.

Numbers. Its not like they had the great heathen army. Also, no firearms or cross bows. And their swords were less advanced when they had them.  
 

Spaniards had Toledo Steel. Ill take Toledo Steel over bog iron steel any day. 

Edited October 15, 2025 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

I dont personally understand the veneration of Columbus, when he never actually found North America at all.

Meanwhile Italian John Cabot, whom did discover North America, and didnt murder or abuse anyone doing it, even graced it with the name 'America', has been largely airbrushed from history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cabot

 

And  his Son Sebastian, cursed by being born English, made an even more significant journey, and I didnt even hear about him till I did a search on John Cabot.

He later explored Brazi and Argentina, and traveled along the River Plate, obviously of some significance to the Spanish crown.

I mean yeah, if you like Cuba, I get the significance of Columbus, but frankly if you are North American, I dont really get it at all.

Edited October 15, 2025 by Stuart Galbraith

[bojan]

8 hours ago, rmgill said:

Spaniards had Toledo Steel. Ill take Toledo Steel over bog iron steel any day. 

That was for the rich and specific equipment.

Most of mass manufactured equipment (both armor and weapons, but also various equipment for horses etc) used by common soldier/conquistador was made of steel that was not that better than one used in the Viking age.

[Ivanhoe]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I dont personally understand the veneration of Columbus, when he never actually found North America at all.

 

 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Meanwhile Italian John Cabot, whom did discover North America, and didnt murder or abuse anyone doing it, even graced it with the name 'America', has been largely airbrushed from history.

Umm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci

Quote

Amerigo Vespucci (/vɛˈspuːtʃi/ vesp-OO-chee,[2] Italian: [ameˈriːɡo veˈsputtʃi]; 9 March 1454 – 22 February 1512) was an Italian explorer, navigator and popular author from the Republic of Florence for whom "America" is named.

 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I mean yeah, if you like Cuba, I get the significance of Columbus, but frankly if you are North American, I dont really get it at all.

I don't think anyone is surprised by your inability to get it. 

[Ivanhoe]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Meanwhile Italian John Cabot, whom did discover North America, and didnt murder or abuse anyone doing it, even graced it with the name 'America', has been largely airbrushed from history.

Can you name anyone murdered or abused by Columbus, or are you just going to continue parroting Klan talking points? 

Folks with working cogitators will realize that there has been a persistent and ongoing bullcrap barrage concerning Columbus, and to not parrot slanders without doing some due diligence. But its always easier for lefties to hate than to learn and think. 

https://www.livescience.com/are-columbus-carib-cannibal-claims-true.html
 

Quote

 

Now, a new study published Jan. 10 in the journal Scientific Reports suggests Columbus may have been (partially) right after all. By analyzing more than 100 skulls from the Caribbean (plus a few from Florida and Panama) dating between the years 800 and 1542, researchers concluded that the Carib people were indeed present in the Bahamas as early as the year A.D. 1,000 — meaning Columbus' descriptions of their raids could have been based in reality.

"I've spent years trying to prove Columbus wrong when he was right: There were Caribs in the northern Caribbean when he arrived," study co-author William Keegan, curator of Caribbean archaeology at the Florida Museum of Natural History, said in a statement.

 

People who are fundamentally hostile to western civilization rarely address facts, because they need the slanders to maintain their hate. 

The above academic (cough, cough) illustrates the disease. To his credit, he employed just enough intellectual self-discipline to recognize that his hatred wasn't supported by reality. 

[sunday]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

That was for the rich and specific equipment.

Most of mass manufactured equipment (both armor and weapons, but also various equipment for horses etc) used by common soldier/conquistador was made of steel that was not that better than one used in the Viking age.

The Catalan forge iron making process was introduced in the 11th Century, and the Moorish way of swordmaking was quite renowned - Tizona and Colada, the two famous swords owned by El Cid were of Moorish manufacture.

It seems feasible that the Spanish general iron making in the 15th Century was better than the Viking one in the 9th Century.

[bojan]

Yes, in general, but not significantly on mass manufactured items.

Best Spanish steel of the period easily beats anything Vikings did, but low(er) end, like used for "munition grade" equipment was not much better than average Viking one. It is not that it was bad, neither average Viking nor lower end Spanish steel could be called "bad", but some, less important characteristics were sacrificed. Like, no need to use steel with good springiness for a helmet or breast plate, better to save it for a good sword, preferably civilian one, since militaries* preferred less sophisticated swords** anyway (because they were more durable).

And wars were won by "munition grade equipment", not the best rapier in the world...

*Problem in research is that museums, with some exceptions, mostly kept officer's/nobles private purchased weapons, not mass issued one, so we can easily draw false conclusions on how common "fancy" weapons/armor were.

**Especially since swords were more-less a sidearm for the most soldiers, not their primary weapon - spear/pike, crossbow, musket etc.

[sunday]

I forgot to mention that even in full Tercios paid by the State, soldiers had to pay for their personal weapons. Pikemen were given a pike, but they had to procure a sword if they wanted one, for instance.

In the Americas, the expeditions were organized by private individuals, so all weapons were personal weapons.

[bojan]

Yes, but in such cases weapons were also purchased from mass manufacturers. None is going to give real Toledo sword to every single conquistador, no matter how much money he had to burn. 

Even "munition grade" breastplate with tassets and shoulder protection was equivalent to a 6+ months wage of the skilled craftsmen. With just chest plate you could probably get away with 4-5 months of pay. Sword was ~2 months pay. High quality armor and weapons was equivalent to a sport cars of today,  hence very few could afford it.

One of the reasons for reduction of armor coverage and later almost total abandonment of armor was not it's ineffectiveness (it was very effective vs all melee weapon and partially even vs firearms), it was that armies were getting bigger and there was no way to mass equip them with armor. And experience of later stage of 30 years war and Great Turkish war (that both saw mass use of unarmored troops, due the need to raise armies quickly) was that unarmored troops did not take that many more casualties than armored, so rationalization was clear - after all, in the end people were less expensive than armor was.

[rmgill]

The point of order on armor is that it offered substantial advantages over not wearing armor or just padded cloth armor. 
 

Yes, armor changed as firearms became more prevalent but that was because the old armor was over matched and not as effective. Now look at soldiers today. Armor can and does protect against threats and police and military wear the function of breastplates today. Some even shoulder (pauldrons) and leg armor (greaves). 
 

Natives weren’t wearing cloth or leather because they had firearms, it was the best tech they had. 

[bojan]

26 minutes ago, rmgill said:

The point of order on armor is that it offered substantial advantages over not wearing armor or just padded cloth armor. 

Аgain, on the large scale armor was effective when relatively few elites fought wars. When wars became mass affair - people were cheaper than armor was and armor was first significantly reduced and then abandoned. By the time of conquest of America that process was well underway. Conquistadors themselves often abandoned breastplates, relying on cloth armor only. Because period armor was optimized for mass combat, and in skirmishes they most often fought it played much lesser part. So in effect, they have degraded their armor to the ~level of what natives themselves had... because they were facing same threat that native armor was made to protect.

Also, you are ignoring war clubs/maces which were extremely effective vs armor, even plate one (due the transfer of blunt force trauma), that were probably as common weapon Spanish faced as any other apart from spears.

And in lot of other cases material of weapons did not matter - neither flint/obsidian nor steel tipped arrow was going to penetrate metal breastplate, both are going to penetrate gambeson/quilted coat. Same for a flint/obsidian vs steel tipped spear, metal armor is safe from both, cloth/leather/etc is not. Steel weapons had advantage in durability, but for single engagement that was not a relevant factor, that was something that would come to play in the longer campaigns.

Quote

Yes, armor changed as firearms became more prevalent but that was because the old armor was over matched and not as effective.

Armor was never "as effective" as people imagine it to be, but was neither as ineffective as portrayed in most movies. It was a last layer of defense, after much more important shield and even more important skill of avoiding being hit.

Old armor was not really overmatched*, majority of people were still killed by melee combat, and even old armor provided some protection against that. Only by the time of Spanish war in Netherland/30 years war did that change and firearms would start to take over in killing business from melee weapons..

*Mail was used well into 16th century, even later in the east, despite being "obsoleted" by the plate armor.

Quote

...Natives weren’t wearing cloth or leather because they had firearms, it was the best tech they had. 

Natives wore what was convenient (in technological and economical sense) for them to have. Some of that was however reasonably effective vs swords, probably about as effective, possibly even slightly more effective as gambesons or quilted chest pieces worn by the vast majority of conquistadors.

[rmgill]

And by the 17th century even kings were wearing buff coats because firearms were king and Mobility was the better advantage. 

Point is, the Europeans had a tech advantage. 

[Ol Paint]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I dont personally understand the veneration of Columbus, when he never actually found North America at all.

Meanwhile Italian John Cabot, whom did discover North America, and didnt murder or abuse anyone doing it, even graced it with the name 'America', has been largely airbrushed from history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cabot

 

And  his Son Sebastian, cursed by being born English, made an even more significant journey, and I didnt even hear about him till I did a search on John Cabot.

He later explored Brazi and Argentina, and traveled along the River Plate, obviously of some significance to the Spanish crown.

I mean yeah, if you like Cuba, I get the significance of Columbus, but frankly if you are North American, I dont really get it at all.

Did you even look at the light grey track on your first map?  There's only 2 continents that make up the Americas, North America and South America, with the border being the Isthmus of Panama.

If you're going to complain about the Caribbean islands not being part of the North American continent, then Newfoundland Island isn't, either.   

Doug

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Ol Paint said:

Did you even look at the light grey track on your first map?  There's only 2 continents that make up the Americas, North America and South America, with the border being the Isthmus of Panama.

If you're going to complain about the Caribbean islands not being part of the North American continent, then Newfoundland Island isn't, either.   

Doug

Then hand the credit to Sebastian, whom sailed US east coast from the Northwest passage to the Chesapeake. That's discovering North America, not sailing around Cuba till everyone is dizzy and trying to convince everyone when he got home he went to India.

Either way you look at it, North America was found and named by a Cabot, not Columbus.

[Ol Paint]

Why do you think all those explorers were making voyages in 1495-1505, yet no one was making the trip in 1490?  

Doug

[bojan]

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

And by the 17th century even kings were wearing buff coats because firearms were king and Mobility was the better advantage. 

By the time of 17th century only few kings actually fought in the field. "Mad Swede" Gustav Adolf was names so because he actually did. But still, during 1632. battle of Lutzen, of all commanders present only Walenstein probably did not carry plate armor (because he was sick and by accounts barely able to mount the horse). Even Gustav Adolf, who reduced armor of his cavalry* considerably carried musket proof breast plate.

*Cavalry was in general still carrying armor, so called "half-plates", usually with at least pistol proof breast plates, sometimes even musket proof.. Here is an illustration of Imperial cavalry commanded by Pappenheim. As can be seen, other than lower legs protection it is full suit of the plate armor.

Quote

Point is, the Europeans had a tech advantage. 

Yes, and advantage in missile weapons (crossbows and firearms) was very important one. Even more important it was in the area of tactics, especially volley fire and holding a tight ranks - it was not first time for Spanish to see such "light infantry", since a lot of them were veterans of previous fights with Arabs, most of whom also operated as a semi-organized light infantry.

Tech advantage was much, much less important in the domain of armor and melee weapons.

[DKTanker]

26 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Either way you look at it, North America was found and named by a Cabot, not Columbus.

Named for Amerigo Vespucci.  The name Amerigo is a clue.  He, not Cabot, or anybody else, was the first European to understand that the lands recently discovered were an entirely new continent, not Asia.  This is American grade school knowledge.  Or at least it was 50 years ago.  In 1507 a German cartographer named the new lands "America" in honor of Amerigo Vespucci.

And again, Newfoundland, an Island, is as much "America" as are the Bahamian Islands, Cuba, Santo Domingo, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico.  So too are the lands of Venezuela and Panama.
Side note, you're the only one hung up on "North America" the rest of are saying America because we know very well that Columbus never set foot on what is now the United States of America. 

However, to say he never stepped foot on the North American continent is incorrect in asmuchas Panama is considered part of the North American Continent.  Moreover, the Islands of Bahama, Jamaica, and Cuba are all solidly anchored to the North American continental plate.

Edited October 15, 2025 by DKTanker

[R011]

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I dont personally understand the veneration of Columbus, when he never actually found North America at all.

Meanwhile Italian John Cabot, whom did discover North America, and didnt murder or abuse anyone doing it, even graced it with the name 'America', has been largely airbrushed from history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cabot

 

And  his Son Sebastian, cursed by being born English, made an even more significant journey, and I didnt even hear about him till I did a search on John Cabot.

He later explored Brazi and Argentina, and traveled along the River Plate, obviously of some significance to the Spanish crown.

I mean yeah, if you like Cuba, I get the significance of Columbus, but frankly if you are North American, I dont really get it at all.

Columbus was responsible for mass colonization and conquest.  John Cabot outed a lucrative fishing ground.  Not enty trivial, but hard to compare and a bit boring.  It was nearlya a century after the Spanish started taking over Cuba, Mexico, and Central and South America that England and France began colonizing Canada and what became the US.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, R011 said:

Columbus was responsible for mass colonization and conquest.  John Cabot outed a lucrative fishing ground.  Not enty trivial, but hard to compare and a bit boring.  It was nearlya a century after the Spanish started taking over Cuba, Mexico, and Central and South America that England and France began colonizing Canada and what became the US.

I think you hit the nail on the head, it was boring and so forgotten. 

The Vikings got forgotten too of course, probably because there was nobody to report on the rape and pillage.

[R011]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think you hit the nail on the head, it was boring and so forgotten. 

The Vikings got forgotten too of course, probably because there was nobody to report on the rape and pillage.

No fixed settlements to rape, even if they had manpower to spare from survival to do so, and nothing worth pillaging.  If the Natives of Newfoundland had the gold of those in Mexico, you'd have seen more and better supplied Norsemen taking it and making a permanent presence.

[bojan]

This.

Vikings were opportunists, and where there was nothing to plunder or trade - they were not interested in that area.