[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: great-wall-of-china.jpg (171 KB, 760x506)
171 KB
171 KB JPG
Historically speaking, do border walls work?
>>
yes, they make millions in tourism revenues
>>
>>5951796
Yes it drains the taxpayers of hard earned wealth ensuring only rich kids can hold power or self determination.
>>
>>5951807
What about the first two thousand years?
>>
>>5951796
Of course. If you want to get to point B, miles away and there is a 20 or 30 foot wall in the way, it’s going to make things much harder. Especially if you have possessions, especially for women and children.
>>
Unless you're taking cannon fire, they most definitely do.
>>
If you're determined and organized you can always get past a wall but it is going to seriously make it harder to cross over without permission.
>>
>>5951796
To me, it seems more efficient to make a network of forts and outposts which can support each other than to try to build a literal wall. Although, I admit, after taking a closer look at that picture, building anything as large as a fort in that area would probably be a real challenge, maybe impossible.
>>
>>5951796
no
proof mongols
>>
>>5951856
Yes
Proof all mongol raids prior to Timujin having Chinese engineers and siege weapons
>>
>>5951796
They work as a military defense (mostly as an early warning system). Illegal immigration however is closer to smuggling, and walls were never any good at stopping that.
>>
File: antonine_wall.jpg (86 KB, 800x566)
86 KB
86 KB JPG
The limes worked quite well while it was well funded.
>>
>>5951796
What about artistic steel slats?
>>
>>5951796
Sort of
Planes kind of make it redundant now
>>
>>5951796

Work at what? At monitoring and controlling the flow of people, goods, and animals, reasonably successful.

At completely preventing people from entering a territory, either in armies or in small groups, not particularly well.
>>
>>5951979
They're rapists
>>
>>5951987
Who?
>>
>>5951995
They're bringing crime
>>
>>5951995
Mongols and Germanics.
>>
>>5951854
The great Wall of China is a series of forts, but with walls connecting them.
>>
Yes.
>>
>>5951796
Ask Israel, they seem happy with theirs.
>>
>>5952004
Ok, I can see Mongols but the Germanics never got near China.
>>5952003
If you mean the Mongols and Germanics, then yes they do bring crime. They are barbarians after all.
>>
>>5951995

Conquistadors
>>
File: 11limes_dessinneu.jpg (35 KB, 600x300)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
>>5952026
But the Germanics got near the Rhine Limes, which was a border wall of sorts.
>>
>>5951933

Yeah, but the other half of border defense was Roman diplomacy.
>>
>>5951995
Northern Barbarians (AKA the horseniggers)
>>
File: tenochtitlan.jpg (140 KB, 848x447)
140 KB
140 KB JPG
It's interesting that the most common example of a border wall is a madman's vanity project that took literally multiple dynasties to "complete", was ungodly expensive, cost thousands of lives, and didn't stop Manchus from taking over the country and ruling it for 268 years.

The Maginot Line didn't work. the Atlantic Wall didn't work. Hadrian's Wall never stopped people moving about, whatever utility it probably had as a purely military fortification. And let's be real, the engineering gap between Americans and Mexicans isn't fucking comparable to the gap between Romans and Picts, nor to that between the Chinese and Mongols. Mexicans have been using ingenious contraptions and works to do their thing for decades and they are soon going to be better at it than we are, if they aren't already. The Mexicans built greater cities than the Romans did, with pre-Roman technology, and it took Americans actual centuries to match their scale. And we still haven't matched their quality. This stuff is in their blood.

I swear to God, we will never be able to build a wall on the border without armies of Mexican laborers. You can't build a fucking doughnut shop in Maine with just white guys these days.

>>5951875
What is meant by this?
>>
> the great wall of China
> the Roman limes
Is building a border wall the first sign of a decaying empire?
>>
>>5952045
Well, it's still technically a "border wall" of sorts, so I'll give you that.
>>5952055
Yes, they can stay away. Nobody likes them.
>>5952042
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCKING CANNONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>5951796
Yes. But the weakness is always going to be human side of things. In China's case, its betrayals from generals and slacking of military.
>>
>>5952086
The Maginot Line did work, in that it forced the Germans to go through the Ardennes. The problem was precisely the French assumption that the Germans would never try this due to the nature of the terrain in the Ardennes.

Walls that have worked in more recent history:
- the border fences along the US-Mexican border, a policy that has been pursued since the Clinton days and has succeeded in massively reducing illegal border crossings;
- the Israeli West Bank barrier, which has reduced casualties from suicide bombings from several hundred in the early 2000s to a handful;
- the barbed wire barrier along the Hungarian border since 2015, which reduced illegal border crossings into the country by more than 99%.
>>
>>5952191
>It wasnt as if the Germans did the exact same thing 25 years before
>>
>>5952199
Yeah but this time round the idea was that the French thought they'd be able to counter any Ardennes attack, that the Germans were aware of this, and that they therefore wouldn't try it.
>>
They’re helpful when manned
Otherwise no
>>
>>5951796
They exist to control the border via controlling the flow of people crossing (can only do it at certain points), controlling revenue, etc. They worked.
>>
>>5951796
Depends on the height, a border wall above 200ft is impossible to scale since the guards on the wall will shoot you dead if they see you trying to climb up.
>>
>>5951796
For china it only worked for making slaves do something somewhat productive as foundations and giving a constant supply of corpses for chinese human meat soup for feeding the officers
>>
>>5952191
>border fences along the US-Mexican border
So why are we having this conversation?
>Israeli West Bank barrier
You didn't seriously mean to bring this up, did you? Shit, we should talk about Berlin instead to conjure a less horrible and depressing comparison. Would you say THAT one worked, or no?
>barbed wire barrier along the Hungarian border
Glorious Hungary and its non-wall. Let's look to South Ossetia for pointers while we're at it.

>The Maginot Line did work
Just listen to yourself, anon.
>>
>>5951796
the purpose of a Border Wall is to stop someone from just walking across the Border, as such walls do work by design.
But that doesn't mean you don't have to staff the wall with watchmen.
>>
>>5952289
You sound butthurt
>>
>>5952330
>So why are we having this conversation?

Because Trump got elected on the idea of building a wall instead of simply pursuing the quarter-century policy that succeeded in massively reducing border crossings, to the point that the vast majority of illegal Mexican immigrants are now due to visa overstays instead?

>You didn't seriously mean to bring this up, did you? Shit, we should talk about Berlin instead to conjure a less horrible and depressing comparison. Would you say THAT one worked, or no?

Once again, what's your point? The argument is about whether walls work or not, what do qualifications such as "depressing" have to do with it?

>Glorious Hungary and its non-wall.

Your point being?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_border_barrier#Impact_on_the_number_of_illegal_migrants_entering_Hungary

>Just listen to yourself, anon.

It did what it set out to do. It was the other parts of the French plan that failed.
>>
>>5952330
>Just listen to yourself, anon.
Not him but it did, it did exactly what it was supposed to do and force the Germans to go around it. Belgium fucked up by declaring neutrality and not allowing the Brits and French to enter their territory before it was to late. Stop getting your WW2 facts from the Hitler Channel.
>>
>>5952330
>Would you say THAT one worked, or no?
It worked very well.
>>
>>5951831
Call it an investment with a very long maturity date
>>
>>5951796
Aren´t a lot of European cities walled?
t. non euro who heard about Valencia in a bio congress
>>
>>5951796
No.
>>
>>5952460
Yeah, but it's different from walling a border.
>>
File: Alesia.png (46 KB, 977x845)
46 KB
46 KB PNG
>>5951796

Yes, but you have to build two walls and trap yourself between them.
>>
>>5952509
Can't wait for a border around California.
>>
>>5951854
this is essentially what the french tried to do to contain english expansion beyond the appalachians
>>
>>5951796
No. Donald Trump’s wall is a vanity project, welfare for rednecks, a political bail out of the Republican Party, pork-barrel spending white elephant that will be held up for years in the courts as the government has to force private citizens to give up their property to build a wall which everybody but morons agree is the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border.

For most of its pre-industrial history China was the plaything of foreign powers. The great wall did nothing to stop the Manchus, Mongols, Jurgens, and other routine excursions of steppe-invaders from conquering the Han. They would have been much better off investing in a crack army of mounted troops to respond to threats as they occurred, similar to what Aurelian did for the Romans, and what Democrats are proposing to do for border patrol.

Besides, walls and fortifications in general were made obsolete by modern technology, especially gunpowder and airplanes. Constantinople has the most extensive network of walls in history... which were taken down quite efficiently by Ottoman cannons.
>>
>>5952191
>>5952205
>>5952394
The biggest problem with the french defence was that the germans were quite a bit faster than they expected. The ardennes and the meuse crossings were being defended, but the german way of concentrating tank and air power allowed them to advance past them before the french could bring in reinforcements. It was a failure of precognition (that such a concentration of power and speed of advance was possible) and then insufficient speed of decision and movement to reinforce these areas.

So I would argue the maginot line did succeed in its purpose (to limit the german choice where to attack), it just wasn't enough. Plus it probably did influence the french decision to not improve upon the mobility and decision speed of their army... then again they did not think that necessary either way.

To make a metaphor here, a man armored half in plate is better off than one not armored at all - but if he's the poorer fencer, he'll still lose a fight. Plus he might have trained fencing more, had he not put more trust into his armor than justified.
>>
>>5952616
The French would have been far better off investing in a mobile heavy response force than a static defense line. That’s the problem with every wall: a determined enough opponent is going to find ways around it
>>
>>5951796
For what? useful for taxing traders moving in and out of your land but not really for defence. Perhaps as a sort of "tripwire" that lets the border watchmen get out a signal if an army attempts to pass the border wall and so gives ample time for an army to assemble in response. I don't think they'll stop a determined attack (unless heavily manned but i'm assuming that the hypothetical border is large and so expensive in time and manpower to guard every place at once) but they may buy some time i suppose
>>
>>5952697
>so expensive in time
i meant money not time
>>
>>5952635
>The French would have been far better off investing in a mobile heavy response force than a static defense line.
The problem with relying on "mobile heavy response" is that you might not actually have time to mobilize large numbers of troops in the first place if the enemy is able to pull off a surprise attack. A wall or fort is generally going to impervious to a surprise attack so long as it is properly staffed and maintained.

Fortifications allow a relatively small number of troops to hold out against a much larger force for a period of time. And that was the entire point of the Maginot Line, it enabled the Franco-German border to be defended year-round with a relatively small number of troops. In the event of war, this would give the rest of the French army more time to mobilize, and allow them to be more aggressive in other areas. They knew that the Germans were probably going to have to go around the line, that was the entire point of the line in the first place.
>>
File: 1534441877960.jpg (42 KB, 700x479)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
>>5952086
>The Maginot Line didn't work.
And opinion discarded
>>
File: 1541884565479.jpg (445 KB, 1200x900)
445 KB
445 KB JPG
>>5952330
Anon, the inner German border worked quite well, what are you on about?
>>
>>5952330
>Would you say THAT one worked, or no?
The Berlin wall objectively worked very well for its intended purpose.
>>
>>5951796
How the fuck did they even guard this beast?
>>
>>5952884
I imagine each segment has an area built into the wall which fills the same purpose as a barracks.
>>
>>5952474
I shudder to think what the Chinese will do when they finally have the rest of the world over a barrel. It will not be pretty.
>>
>>5952907
Yeah but I mean the manpower needed to guard the entire length of it is insane, even more so when the population was low.
>>
>>5952914
As long as there's still a few ICBMs aimed at beijing, it won't be much worse than what the americans do.
>>
>>5952884
>>5952927
>oh shit, we're really running out of people here
t. no Chinese ruler ever
>>
>>5952927
I feel like manning levels would vary based on how much you expect an attack, and on which segment is most likely to be attacked.
>>
>>5952936

I don't know why but this comment is cracking me up
>>
>>5951948
Not if you build it high enough
>>
>>5952597
>For most of its pre-industrial history China was the plaything of foreign powers. The great wall did nothing to stop the Manchus, Mongols, Jurgens, and other routine excursions of steppe-invaders from conquering the Han.
There was no wall blocking the Jurchen when they attacked.
The Jin Jurchens actually built a wall against the Mongols. It failed because 90% of the Han Chinese and Khitan in the Jin army defected to the Mongol side, opens the gates and helped the Mongols kill and rape Jurchen.
The Ming dynasty was overthrown by internal peasant rebels led by Li Zicheng and the Ming general Wu Sangui at Shanhai pass on the great wall defected to the Qing and let the Qing army through the wall after Li Zicheng took his father hostage.
>>
File: Saudi pride.png (501 KB, 1875x2208)
501 KB
501 KB PNG
>>5952914
>>5952932
What about the Saudis?
>>
>>5952191
The Israeli wall is illegal as is the rest of that so called state. From the river to the sea
>>
>>5953072
We're not discussing legality here though, only effectiveness
>>
>>5952763
But the whole thing which makes soldiers hit above their weight when defending fortifications comes at a cost of being able to respond dynamically to the situation as it develops. You know that you can hold this position — but so does your enemy, who knows better than to throw his forces away attacking your strong-points, so he is going to redeploy his forces to strike the weak areas, and if the whole thing that makes your defenses work also immobilizes your soldiers, then there’s nothing you can really do to stop your enemy from breaking through.

There’s a reason why the Maginot Line is widely considered one of the biggest blunders in military history.
>>
>>5953031
The earliest versions of the wall were started by Qin Shi Haungdi.

And all those reasons you point out only further drives home the point that a wall is a gigantic boondoggle not worth the expense when border security is more nuanced and complicated than simply defending a line drawn in the sand. Even Romans realized the futility of trying to defend a static border, which is why they primarily relied on a force of mobile heavy infantry to repel serious threats, while static defenses were really just to give the part time border guards a place to hide when mauraders swarm over the border
>>
>>5953128
>comes at a cost of being able to respond dynamically to the situation as it develops.
Being able to protect the Franco-Germany border with a small number troops meant that more troops were available for fighting in other areas. The Maginot line made the French army more flexible, not less.
>>
>>5953163
No, the Maginot line made them unable to redeploy forces to counter what was essentially a redo of the Schlieffen Plan. The line made it so that some forces were simply too far away to be of any use against Germans pushing through the Ardennes.

It betrays one of the most fundamental principles of security: not revealing your strengths and weaknesses to the enemy. The Maginot Line did precisely that: broadcasting loudly to the Germans where they should be concentrating their forces.
>>
>>5953178
Plus it cost an insane amount of money and ressources that could have been used to develop new weapons and tactics
>>
>>5953153
Qin Shi Huang defeated the Xiongnu and built a wall of ramped earth after defeating them and his wall is further north and further east of the Ming great wall which stands today.. There was no wall in the Song dynasty.
>>
File: 1526429149947.png (450 KB, 962x746)
450 KB
450 KB PNG
>>5953178
Nigger how fucking retarded are you? They needed to defend the Franco-German border anyway you fucknugget, and with the Maginot line in place they needed way less men there. The vast majority of there forces was deployed in northern France and Belgium so as to counter a Geerman offensive a la Schlieffen.
And, while we're speaking of Schlieffen,
>The Maginot Line did precisely that: broadcasting loudly to the Germans where they should be concentrating their forces.
Yeah, because the Germans never figured out that Belgium was the way to go if you wanted to stage a quick advance into French territory, right? Pic very much related

>>5953186
This, however, is a valid argument against Maginot.
>>
>>5953178
>No, the Maginot line made them unable to redeploy forces to counter what was essentially a redo of the Schlieffen Plan.
The French army had plenty of troops to fight the Germans. They just screwed up because they failed to cover the Ardennes, which had absolutely nothing to do with the Maginot Line.
>>
File: 4372743.jpg (18 KB, 210x240)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
just a reminder caesar built a wall around a wall then had a wall built around him
in other words, its wall assured mutual siege
its all about who has more wall
>>
>>5953216
Obviously not as retarded as the moron defending what is widely considered by non-armchair generals to be one of the biggest military blunders of all time.

>Yeah, because the Germans never figured out that Belgium was the way to go if you wanted to stage a quick advance into French territory, right? Pic very much related
So why didn’t they put the wall there?

Because it would have been unfeasible and a serious misallocation of military resources even more than it already was, and Germans would have struck at some other weak point in the defenses.

And then you go and shoot your own argument in the foot by agreeing with the guy who was only bolstering my point: money spend on static defenses was a terrible choice for investing scarce resources.
>>
File: Chinese food.png (1.69 MB, 2300x1335)
1.69 MB
1.69 MB PNG
>>5952914
They'll have a great feast.
>>
>>5953237
They failed to cover the Ardennes because they were too busy sinking resources into their boondoggle of a wall, which then as in now is primarily to provide security theater, making people feel like they’re defended regardless of how well they actually are.
>>
>>5953260
>widely considered by non-armchair generals to be one of the biggest military blunders of all time.
But anon, muh Maginot huehuehue is probably up there with muh Zerg Rush and muh undefeatable Tigers as the unholy trinity as normalfag WW2 "facts".
>So why didn’t they put the wall there?
You are retarded beyond measure and obviously know nothing about the subject.
>And then you go and shoot your own argument in the foot by agreeing with the guy who was only bolstering my point: money spend on static defenses was a terrible choice for investing scarce resources.
Because, unlike you, he was making a valid argument against the Maginot line.
Anyway, further arguing with you is pointless, seeing how you're apparently completely unwilling to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
>>
>>5952597
>>5953153
The Qin dynasty and Han dynasty both crushed and defeated the Xiongnu nomads. The Han dynasty and Western Jin dynasty (nothing to do with the Jurchen) defeated and crushed barbarians peoples like the Xiongnu, Jie, Di, and Qiang, massacring hundreds of thousands of them, and then deported them into northern China, inside Chinese borders south if the Han wall so they could be used as slaves for the Han Chinese for over a century. Those barbarians were known as the Wu Hu. Western Jin Princes started a civil war in Northern China fighring for the throne. The Xiongnu leader Liu Yuan complaintes that his peoples were slaves to the Han and Jie leader Shi Le was an actual slave to Han Chinese official. The Jie and Xiongnu were used for pastoral farm labor by Han Chinese. These deported barbarian slaves led a slave revolt as the Eight Jin Princes fought each other and some of the Western Jin princes used the barbarian slaves in their armies. Liu Yuan and Shi Le declared their own dynasties as they led their slave peoples in an uprising. The Wu Hu barbarians did not penetrate the wall, they were slaves like Spartacus who were defeated and brought into China to be used as manual slave labor by Han Chinese. The Tang dynasty did non built a wall but also practiced deportation of defeated peoples into Northern China. Tang deported the entire Gokturk nation into Northern China after defeating the Gokturks to use as laborors, fighters. The Tang sent the Tanguts and the Shatuo Turks into Northern China's border regions. After the collapse of the Tang the Tanguts built their own state and one of the Shatuo who was fighting a civil war with other Shatuo ceded Beijing to the Khitan which was south of easily defended Yin mountains and opens up the north China plain. The Khitan were conquered by the Jurchen who had no man made or geographic obstacles blocking them. The Ming were the only one who did not practice deportation of defeated barbarians into northern China.
>>
>>5953294
>muh normalfag
Contrarians contrarianing just for the sake of being contrarian are actually worse

>hurrr muh ad hominem
Just shows the intellectual bankruptcy of your ideas

>muh valid argument
His point is exactly my point: the wall is an inefficient allocation of military resources which never actually does what it’s proponents say it will do
>>
>>5953279
The wall freed up manpower by allowing the Franco-German border to be defended by a minimalist force. Failure to defend the Ardennes was an unforced tactical error.
>>
>>5953338
But it just sat there looking like a big beautiful wall while German tanks rolled around it. Manpower or no manpower, I’m sure those French soldiers would have rather had anti-tank guns instead of fortifications in a place that wasn’t actually under attack
>>
>>5953330
>which never actually does what it’s proponents say it will do
But it did all it was supposed to do. The problem is, what it was supposed to do was no longer enough. But that is not a problem of the line itself, but of French military doctrine.
>>
>>5953350
The Maginot line forced the Germans to go around the Franco-German border, just as planned.
>>
>>5953363
>But that is not a problem of the line itself, but of French military doctrine.
Actually, the problem was with Belgium. They wouldn't let France extend the line to cover the Franco-Belgian border.
>>
>>5953363
Do you not understand cause and effect? Have you never played a game of chess in your life? Do you really think Germans weren’t observing the French and adjusting their tactics accordingly?

It didn’t work as intended because the Germans weren’t dumb enough to throw their forces at a place where the French were very obviously trying to project force, but had the sense to say “let’s strike here, where they obviously aren’t expecting us to attack”
>>
>>5953391
Who the fuck decided to relent to the Belgians?
>>
>>5953395
Everybody knew that the Germans were going to have to come through Belgium. They just didn't think they'd be able to get tanks through the Ardennes, and that was where things went haywire.
>>
>>5953415
Which again goes to the doctrinal error that the French military had made which inspired them to build a wall in althe first place, underestimating the importance of mobility, force concentration, and ability to rapidly replace combat losses. In other words they were too busy trying to win the last war
>>
>>5952597
>>5953302
The Han dynasty invested in crack mounted troops and invested in the wall. The Tang dynasty only invested crack troops and did not build a wall. They both defeated barbarians and deported them into northern China to use as laborers, soldiers and guards, it was their deportations which caused barbarian states to appear in northern China. The Ming invested in crack troops for the first half of the dynasty and built a wall in the second half but did not deport defeated peoples into northern China unlike the Han and Tang. They were only defeated by internal Han rebels who destroyed the capital leading Ming Generals on the wall to defect To the Qing.
>>
File: r1zr3jm86ba11.jpg (83 KB, 550x543)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
>>5952086
>the Maginot line didn'twork
>he Mexicans built greater cities than the Romans did
>-t.
this board has become a metting point for drooling retards
>>
>>5953435
>A wall designed specifically to free up manpower for use in other areas means that France didn't understand mobility or force concentration.
>>
>>5953471
A half-assed attempt that depends on static defenses instead of, say, mechanizing your infantry, doesn’t count.

Amateurs talk of strategy and professionals speak of logistics. Victory in war is more a function of how you invest scarce resources than who has the best tank or the most complicated field maneuvers
>>
>>5953486
The Maginot Line freed up resources by allowing the Franco-German border to be defended by a miminalist force.
>>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danevirke

The Danevirke was a massive series of fortifications in southern Jutland, bliver to have held the Franks at distance. Pretty famous here, had a huge symbolic meaning untill 1864.
But you have probably never heard of it because you only care about more famous countries.
>>
>>5951796
Yes, of course they work. Do you really believe that the construction of walls is the product of some great historical mass-hysteria? I thought we were better than this. Walls work, they have for millennia, they function as a force multiplier, the existence of sufficient barriers allows defenders to respond to threats much more easily, without them, a potential threat can move freely. Walls slow people down, and limit their points of entry, thus allowing the defenders the ability to dictate the pace of interaction with the border and respond in a much more timely fashion.

>>5951894
Hmm not so
https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israels-border-walls-A-case-study-For-Trumps-mantra-574517
>After breaking ground in 2010, Israel completed the 242-km. (150-mile) fence in December 2013 at a cost of around $450 million. Whereas about 9,500 Africans crossed into Israel illegally in the first six months of 2012, less than three dozen did so in the first six months of 2013, at which time the major components of the barrier had been completed.
You might be surprised at the fact that walls are better at stopping regular people than entire armies.

>>5951817
Lol, this is what weak thought looks like.

Walls work, they have for centuries. Why are we supposed to believe the ludicrous that all of a sudden they don't even if you support the Democrats agenda.
>>
>>5952597
You are not a /his/ poster. This weak, politicized, and unhelpful analysis banking on its appeal to political punditry fails to grasp the reasons why any of the historical events mentioned happened and how they happened.

What even is this analysis?
>For most of its pre-industrial history China was the plaything of foreign powers. The great wall did nothing to stop the Manchus, Mongols, Jurgens, and other routine excursions of steppe-invaders from conquering the Han. They would have been much better off investing in a crack army of mounted troops to respond to threats as they occurred, similar to what Aurelian did for the Romans, and what Democrats are proposing to do for border patrol.
You are triggering multiple /his/ anons by just how fucking wrong this is. Also what even is that point about Ottoman canons? What they're going drag fucking gunnery around with them to the border and shoot down the wall? Great way to get shot. Please lurk more before posting.
>>
GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS
>>
As a deterrent to movement, sure. Military, they're obselete once the enemy has explosives.

In terms of the US/Mexico border? Personally I think a better idea would be to take the US military out of the Middle East, a place where they have no good reason to be, and instead stationed in Northern Mexico so that the cartel problem can be sorted swiftly and decisively for the mutual benefit of both the US and Mexico. Really don't understand why there isn't more co-operation between the countries on that count.
>>
>>5953694
>using Israel as an example
There walls only need to be a couple dozen miles to 100 miles long. A wall thatcovers thousands of miles of uninhabited territory is useless as a means of stopping invaders or other unwanted persons.

>Walls work
The Great Wall famously didn’t work
>>
>>5953768
Go back to r/the donald and stop pretending to speak for this board nigger
>>
>>5955781
Against military invasion, yes.

The US/Mexico border wall is meant to deter migration, not invasion (inb4 autists claiming they're the exact same thing)
>>
>>5951796
Yeah they funnel problem populations and invaders to easily metered choke points and cause human waves/hordes to fragment. They’re quite effective. Killing the people at the border is also effective.
>>
>>5951796
Turkey has walls on borders with Iraq and Syria. It stopped illegal smuggling, terrorist movement.
https://www.dailysabah.com/war-on-terror/2018/06/09/turkey-finishes-construction-of-764-km-security-wall-on-syria-border
>>
>>5951796
I mean up until the people on the other side figure out dynamite, then walls stop being so useful.
>>
>>5952191
>the border fences along the US-Mexican border, a policy that has been pursued since the Clinton days and has succeeded in massively reducing illegal border crossings;
I would argue it's less this and more the mass deportations under the Obama administration that curtailed illegal immigration.
>>
The issue with walls is if it's a really long border, it requires a lot of manpower to watch it. People bring up Israel and yeah it works, but it's also not a very big border, it's easy to monitor. Due to human visual limits on how far you can see before you reach the horizon, the US wall to be 100% effective would have to have a guard tower every 6 miles so that the line of sights would match. And that's a lot more costly than just a bunch of fencing.
>>
>>5952597
>Besides, walls and fortifications in general were made obsolete by modern technology, especially gunpowder and airplanes. Constantinople has the most extensive network of walls in history... which were taken down quite efficiently by Ottoman cannons.
Ok but the US-Mexico border isn't dealing with a LITERAL invading army.
>>
>>5952635
>That’s the problem with every wall: a determined enough opponent is going to find ways around it
Or in the case of the Franco-Prussian War, just smash right through it.
>>
>>5952936
Fuck you gave me a good kek
>>
>>5953435
Which means that building the maginot line and failing to defend the ardennes sufficiently had the same cause (underestimating the importance of mobility and force concentration), not that one caused the other. Having the same kind of army (even if a bit stronger, because no expense for the line) and no maginot line might have made them even weaker at the ardennes and allowed the germans even easier success.
>>
>>5952597
thank you low facial angle, balding, obese, myopic black man who hangs out in a barbershop to read the newspaper instead of reading a book or working on his weight at the gym. Much appreciated input about how you can't put up physical obstructions to stop material bodies from passing from one zone to another.
>>
>>5955784
But he's still right though. That guy who actually thinks the great wall didn't work against steppe niggers needs to pick up a history book instead of making shit up to support his political views.
>>
>>5955814
For now
>>
>>5955817
France lost the Franco-Prussian due to also underestimating the speed of the German advance, only this time it was railroads instead of tanks. Starting to notice a pattern here?
>>
>>5956031
>thinking the Great Wall worked
This isn’t a matter of opinion. It objectively didn’t. Maybe you should read a book before looking like an uninformed cunt on the internet.
>>
>>5951796
As said, they are good to prevent raids, but not in stopping infiltrations of small groups of intruders/immigrats. For those kind of trepassers, letting the frontier be occupied by colonial farmers armed to the teeth is wau more efficent. Intruders will be either shot or enslaved the moment they entered private/village property, discouraging others from the other side of the wall to do the same
So if Burgers wants to resolve the border problem for good, they need some byzantine-like stratioti militias
>>
File: wallposting.png (931 KB, 931x5428)
931 KB
931 KB PNG
>>5951796
No.

As Latin America has learned, the best to keep migrants away is to keep your country a shithole where people don't want to go to.
>>
>>5956337
You should take some of your own advice and actually read up on how the Manchus got past the Great Wall to conquer the Ming
>>
>>5951796
No
>>
>>5952191

>the barbed wire barrier along the Hungarian border since 2015, which reduced illegal border crossings into the country by more than 99%.

Left wingers were arguing the same mindless, stupid crap the guy you replied to did regarding our fence, it's almost as if they were cheerleading for migrants to cross our borders.

t. Hungarian
>>
>>5956448
>it's almost as if they understand that walls are extremely cost inefficient
ftfy
>>
File: 1546974703957.jpg (37 KB, 480x360)
37 KB
37 KB JPG
>>5951796
No, especially not when compared to other border protection measures, and especially not in the modern day.
>>
>>5952086

The walls in China built by different dynasties are not the same wall. Each wall built by different dynasties was entirely different in locarion and construction. Each dynasty completed their wall wothin a few years. The frist wall built by the Qin Emperor was completed in a few years. The Han dynasty, Sui dynasty, Jin dynasty, and Ming dynasty each built their own walls which they finished in just years. The Ming wall is south of the Qin, Han, Sui, and Jin walls. The Ming dynasty was destroued by internal peasant rebels Li Zicheng and Zhang Xianzhong in 1644 which caused the Ming general Wu Sangui at Shanhai pass on the Great Wall to defect to the Qing and let them in. The Qing never sent a full scale invasion army last the wall before 1644, they could only temporarily raid the Ming when scaling and have to retreat rapidly because without the passes on the wall secured, they would be stuck on the wrong side with no supply line or reinforcements and surrounded on two sides. However illegal immigrants are not interested in returning but illegal immigrants don't have the resources to scale the great wall of China.
>>
File: 1457159609618.jpg (547 KB, 1362x1499)
547 KB
547 KB JPG
>>5955781
The U.S. is a much bigger country, it can have a bigger wall. Also this is the history board, there are like 30 different posts explaining why the idea that the Great Wall didn't work is wrong.
>>
Flight, mass communication, and modern war kinda fucked that up
>>
>>5956883
Are these technologies from Civilization which obsolete The Great Wall wonder?
>>
>>5953271
Sounds painful.
>>
>>5956448

How does the reduction in Hungary compare to neighboring countries without border walls?
>>
>>5956892
Lol
>>
>>5953248
This, the Athenians also got out-walled in Sicily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Expedition#Winter_of_415_%E2%80%93_spring_of_414_BC



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.