For anyone who isn’t a tankie who salivates over bootleather and might have some actual interest in the subject, please enjoy these excerpts from “Logistics of Warfare in the Age of the Crusades”:
[Several paragraphs removed for brevity.]
This is just a small taste of the chaos involved in the Crusader armies and (lack of) systemic logistics.
I’d like to say something along the lines of “I didn’t realize tankie bootlicking included reactionary simping for feudal regimes because feudalism isn’t the dreaded SHITLIBS”, but the truth is that I’ve seen enough reactionary arcadian nonsense from tankie bootlickers that it’s a tossup whether it’s them, or an outright monarchist, whenever I see someone start to talk about how great and refined Christian Europe was, and how there’s been a massive conspiracy to hide it by the dreaded bourgeois intellectuals.
The difference between them and monarchists, of course, being that a monarchist’s ideal leader wears a lot of gold jewelry on their head; while a tankie’s ideal leader wears a lot of gold jewelry on their chest instead.
Holy shit, this guy is incredibly stupid, even by the low standards of tankies.
This notion should look ridiculous on its face. If mediaeval European logistics were ‘primitive’ then it should immediately raise questions as to how the Crusaders managed to hold al-Quds/Jerusalem for decades and why the Mongols failed to conquer all of Europe.
Does he not know what logistics are in a military sense? Does he not know what ‘primitive’ means in this context despite me immediately outlining what I meant by it? Does he not realize that ad-hoc logistics does not mean that starvation immediately sets in?
Me:
When called to arms, feudal polities generally did not have an actual system for feeding and supplying their troops - they just made arrangements as they went.
This far-right bootlicking chud, quoting an actual source which disproves me by… saying the exact same fucking thing I did:
[T]he crusades were no ordinary wars, and the provision of supply to western troops, who travelled many hundreds or even thousands of miles from home, required the organization of new logistical systems. Certainly, princes and kings were able to manage the logistics for their own military households in a manner consistent with ordinary warfare, while still in their home territories.
Similarly, individual armed pilgrims could carry food with them as they marched to join larger crusader groups, much as they would have done if called up to perform expeditionary military duty in a war being conducted by their legitimate ruler.
Moreover, these armed pilgrims faced the need to replenish their supplies without having any legal access to pre-existing or institutionalized systems of distribution.
The first step was to make agreements with the rulers of the territories through which they intended to travel. For Duke Robert of Normandy, Count Robert of Flanders, and Count Stephen of Blois, this meant making arrangements with the king of France; with a series of city-states along the Mediterranean coast of the Italian peninsula, including Genoa and Pisa; with the papacy; and with the Norman rulers of southern Italy and Sicily either to provide supplies or establish markets where supplies could be purchased.
Fascists are the same in any shade, it would seem. Morons, to the last.
LOL
btw did you already see this comment of hers? idk if its concern trolling or butthurt or what but I think somebody might be a little obsessed with you (among other things).
At the end of the day, it’s just amusing for me, lmao. If I want to make another “They love me!” meme, all I have to do is search my name or their favorite euphemism-of-the-day for me and I can fill up yet another bulletin board with their obsessive adoration of the past month or two. They generate new material all the time, I couldn’t keep up with my fan club (💋) even if I wanted to.
It was cute for maybe the first six months I was here, now it’s old hat, honestly. I just assume they’re always talking about me. It’s not like they have anything better to do - talking about actual issues might make them feel bad about how apparent it is that they devalue the lives of marginalized groups, and, as we all know, the purpose of theory is to make dipshits with their thumbs up their asses feel good about about their inaction, not to provide a better basis on which to pursue change in the real world.
Wasn’t it Marx, after all, who said "Activists have only changed the world in various ways; the point, however, is to interpret it”?
Or maybe I’m getting my quotes mixed up.
