Birb_at_Arms

Abbas had the correct take on this back in 2009.

I reiterate my pitch that if Israel simply recognizes a sovereign Palestinian state on mutually acceptable terms, they can run the Israeli part of the former British Mandate however they like and nobody will care.

The problem with chess is that it's *really* old, and while it has remained more-or-less recognizable for most of that time, a lot of the particularities have changed.

But also, if you are wearing a type of armour similar to a breastplate, there will almost certainly be a weak point under the arms, which is easier to hit from the side. Ancient and Medieval European plate defenses virtually all have this weakness, as do their Asian lamellar counterparts.

It's both - the guy right in front can always see you, and if they can see you, they can use their shield, weapons and armour to block your attacks. Alternatively, they can simply step back and force you to leave your line to come within range, whereupon it will be you getting hit in the flanks.

But as someone who has taken part in several recreations of group combat with spears, it's usually really hard to hit the person directly in front of you. Diagonal thrusts against other enemy troops who carelessly step into range to either side are *much* more likely to land. Pawns get that right.

The queen used to have the same move set as the king does now, while in some versions the king used to be able to make one "special" move per game where it copied the move set of a different piece.

I think bishops are also a relatively recent addition.

Yes and no. Chess is a bit less abstract than it initially appears. Pawns and knights work more or less like actual infantry and cavalry armed with spears, for example. The rook also makes more sense as a representation of a war elephant.

It's definitely more a game based on war than a wargame tho.

Also yes. And when the goal of the exercise is to train the personnel and units involved, it's pretty common to have a "dead" unit magically come back to life to make sure its people still get to practice doing their tasks.

On the other hand, German tanks never did this. They *started* the war with three-man turrets and 360° vision cupolas for the commander at a time when nobody else had them, but never developed their fire control any further.
So the TC had to verbally direct the gunner, whose field of view was narrow

IIRC M4 had a good unity periscope for the gunner and a rudimentary commander override, as well. So the commander could indicate a bearing to the gunner, who could find the target with his unity scope before laying the gun with his telescopic gunsight. No talking required.

Oh god, when was this?

In ancient Greece, an Athenian playwright wrote a madcap sex comedy called Lysistrata about an absurd fantasy scenario where women staged a protest against questionable policies from a wartime government.

In ancient Rome, citizen-class women actually did that and succeeded.

What gets me is that the ancient Greeks hated women to a degree that was weird even by the standards of the ancient Mediterranean, let alone today.

That's very true. I have a longtail e-bike that I use to carry all my fencing gear around, and I'm pretty sure it can technically carry more stuff than some cars. I managed a 100km round trip with like 40kg of stuff on the back to go to a workshop in another city at one point.

Yeah, e-bikes are also huge in the hillier parts of Europe. Italy and France are full of them.

Au contraire, mon ami! Both Russia and Israel have nukes but have not used them. I assume this is because of woke, and not because nuking a territory you intend to conquer and settle with your own people would be stupid.

E-bikes help for navigating the much more sprawling cities of North America without showing up to your destination covered in sweat.

Right, so every flight (just kidding) (or am I?)

Air Canada has been doing this on longer flights (e.g. Toronto to Vancouver) since I was old enough to drink. AFAIK it's just short haul flights (e.g. Toronto to Montreal) where they didn't previously bother.

Since when has this not been free?

Yes, and also "John Brown's body is a-mouldering in the ground but his truth is marching on"

Whatever could that "truth" be? Such a cryptic line in a song!

IIRC the Russian Empire started aggressively promoting cotton production in Central Asia to make up for lost imports due to the American Civil War, so there's that.

You are the most unserious person I have encountered all week.

He also only has like 3 years of actual foreign affairs experience.

That's a lot by the standards of the Trump White House, but very little by those of any other administration.

Warfighter shit right there

Yeah, the point I'm trying to make is that a 19th century imperialist would have few moral problems with what they Trump administration is doing, but would think they were raving mad from a practical standpoint.

I feel like a 19th century imperialist would have some wildly racist opinions on a conflict between Jews and Muslims, but would also say things like "Why do you guys care about this region so much? It seems to have nothing that you need, and stirring up trouble there makes you weaker elsewhere."

I don't think that's the point of the thread.