|
lilljonas posted:After all, the image of the Gods stopping the Mongols in the form of the Kamikaze storms, not the actual samurai who won some pretty hairy battles (the storms themselves were not enough to keep the Mongols out). Thank you for the interesting post. I'd be glad to hear more about the Japanese vs. Mongols.
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:It was called a horo, and yes. Later models sorta consisted of these silk sheets being hung over a globular wooden frame instead of just billowing out as the horseman rode along. I get the impression that it didn't really stop arrows so much as slow them down to the point that they didn't have sufficient force to break through the guy's armor. Theres a youtube video where they test them, and yes they actually work way better than you'd think. The arrows get tangled up in them instead of hitting the dude. I can't find the video though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Are there any grains of truth to champion warfare? I've heard that in hoplite warfare, the generals and most prominent citizens led from the front, and if one side had most of theirs killed off it could lead to a mass surrender with relatively few casualties. That's sort of like champion warfare in that a small number of casualties among the prominent leads to decisive victory. I seem to remember reading in a book about Greek combat that it did happen occasionally in the early history before they had much contact with outside forces when their combat was still extremely ritualized. Because of the terrain of Greece and the necessity of getting their volunteer citizens back into the fields to harvest, Greek combat evolved early on to favor decisive hand-to-hand combat to decide matters quickly. Skirmishing and sieges were not really utilized much in the early periods. Basically if two city-states had a beef over something. Say, a disputed grazing area, and poo poo got escalated, both sides would put out the call for their citizens to assemble. The majority of male citizens had their own weapons and armor, and would show up for the campaign voluntarily. Not showing up for the battle considered to be a cowardly thing to do, and people would mock you for it and shun you. Then once they got all their guys together they'd go out towards their enemy and usually they'd either run into the other army, or sometimes it would be prearranged to meet in a certain spot. Now, keep in mind that Greece has extremely rugged terrain so there are not a lot of ways to and from places, so not a lot of maneuvering is possible. You pretty much know where the enemy is going to have to come at you from. So you go to the closest open area and sure enough, there is the enemy. Now one of three things happen: 1) Now that both sides have waved their swinging dicks around at each other and shown that they're not little bitches both sides come to an agreement and leave the field satisfied they they upheld the honor of their city. 2) They fight it out and the first side to break and run loses the war. 3) Both sides realize that a grazing dispute isn't worth getting into a straight-up slug-fest over and have champions duel instead. So, yeah, there you go. It wasn't uncommon for both sides to show up to fight, and when they see that the other side wasn't going to fold over easily, to come to an agreement and leave the field without a fight at all. Also, yeah, usually the most experienced and respected citizens would fight in the front rank. The right flank was also considered a place of honor in the battle at the formation would tend to shift right during the course of the battle and the right flank would usually be the one to lap around the enemy flank and start hitting them from the side. Vets would usually also form the sides and back of the formation, to help hem in the new guys in the center from breaking and running. Edit: After the Peloponnesian War and the Persian invasion a lot of this changed dramatically.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2011 17:18
|
|
|
The Norseman with the axe on a bridge...is a metaphor. For something.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
Ograbme posted:Were American Civil War battles still fought in Napoleonic point-blank battles? The rifles were so much more accurate that I can't see the shooting phase of a battle lasting more than 15 minutes! Muskets were more accurate than most people think and most Napoleonic era volleys took place at well over 50 yards in the majority of cases. Any closer than that and you were in bayonet charge range and many commanders subscribed to the School of Cold Steel. Interestingly enough, one of the big factors that decreased accuracy of fire in that time period was the sheer amount of noise and smoke the muskets created. This was before smokeless powder so having a couple thousand guys all firing at once quickly enveloped the battlefield in a wall of smoke so thick it was difficult to even see what was going on nearby, let alone where the enemy was. The noise was also deafening. They've found many instances where a dropped musket was loaded with five or more musketballs as the soldier had been loading, pulling the trigger, and loading over and over again without realizing that his gun was jammed and not firing. The smoke and noise made it difficult to tell where your shots were going, or even if you were firing at all. So because of how difficult it was to see and hear in Napoleonic era battles you can see why they used such bright uniforms and tight formations. Any looser formations and dudes would be getting lost and wouldn't be able to hear orders at all. Also cavalry would come and stab you to death. Interestingly, during the French and Indian War, both the French and British discovered that the American terrain dictated a different sorts of tactics. More skirmishing formations were employed, and sharpshooters with rifles were highly sought after as they were extremely effective in the wooded terrain. This would all carry over into the American Revolution, and then into the ACW. In the ACW you saw a huge leap forward in terms of weapon technology. Everything was more accurate and deadly. This turned the ACW into almost a hybrid of Napoleonic and World War 1 tactics. Large formations of troops were used for volley fire ala the Napoleonic Wars, but at much further range, and the terrain usually dictated that one or both sides were at least partially in forested or hilly areas, rather than the flat fields of Europe. This helped alleviate the accuracy of the weaponry somewhat but the fact was the the guns were extremely deadly and two sides exchanging fire for any length of time was absolutely brutal. This is partially why the death toll was so astronomically high. Commanders in the ACW were also more willing to let their troops skirmish, use the terrain, and set up behind defensive positions. Dislodging the enemy from defensive positions such as walls, hills, or trenches became a reoccurring theme in the ACW. Fredricksburg is a classic example of this (as well as Picketts charge) where a force entrenched behind a wall was able to inflict horrendous casualties on the assaulting parties. The ACW was one of the first conflicts where trench warfare developed. Close range firefights from trenches would break out followed by vicious hand-to-hand fighting for entrenched positions. There are accounts of defensive positions literally filling up from the piles of dead bodies as each side fought to control them. This was a bit of foreshadowing for what was to come in World War 1 as defense outpaced offensive capabilities. -- Someone else asked about the Peloponnesian War. I'll try and come back to that later, although I don't remember as much about it as I used to.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2011 07:21
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:Oh yeah, I've heard about some of that. They had enough training and organization that they could rotate dudes through the ranks, the guy at front would fight a bit, then he'd move to the back and the next guy would fight for a while. A professor I had explained it as sort of a human chainsaw. Yeah, they were drilled to rotate ranks because fighting hand to hand is exhausting and after about 10-15 minutes of it soldiers would need a break otherwise they tend to become casualties. Less disciplined armies would fight in less organized formations or just a big blob, which made disengaging from combat for the individual difficult and dangerous. Sometimes the guys in the back would be pushing forward to get into combat and basically push their exhausted comrades in the front directly into the Roman shieldwall where they'd be butchered. The Roman approach was to throw javelins then advance to close range. The purpose of the javelins wasn't so much to cause casualties as to ruin their opponents shields by splintering them and/or sticking in them and making them unwieldy to use. Once the Romans closed they'd pretty much press into the enemies with their shields, and stab underhand into their opponents groin or stomach. The Roman swords were short and extremely well suited for this type of close formation fighting, especially when their enemies were squished between Roman shields and their comrades behind them, unable to move or wield their own weapons effectively. Since the Romans were efficient at rotating ranks essentially their opponents would constantly be facing fresh troops meanwhile their men at the front would become exhausted and get cut down. Rinse and repeat.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
I've read some compelling pieces that suggest that the absolutely primary reason the Roman Empire fell was because of its constant civil wars. Julius Caesar opened the gate for aristocrats to seize the throne, then as time went on lesser generals, bureaucrats, and even peasants took the throne, each time lowering the bar and opening the floodgates to more potential claimants to the throne. Thus from that point forward most generals were more concerned with building up their own reputation, protecting themselves from their rivals, and maneuvering to become Emperor than actually winning campaigns. I had one book that compared the casualties from Roman civil war conflicts and they were staggering compared to the men lost fighting outside invaders. In fact, many Roman generals considered their neighboring nations to be not much more than a nuisance in their game for the throne. There were more than one occasion when a barbarian tribe or hostile nation would seize a decent chunk of Roman territory completely unopposed because all the Roman generals would be too busy fighting each other. Then later, once a victor had emerged they would come back and absolutely obliterate that tribe without breaking a sweat. They just weren't considered to be that much of a threat. The Roman legions could still take all comers, the problem was a lot of the time they were off fighting each other rather than guarding the borders. The problem arose when in later centuries, the Empire was essentially bankrupt (for a number of reasons I don't really feel like getting into) that the civil wars started to have a hugely detrimental effect on the Empire. Troops could not be raised or replaced easily, and the outside invaders had changed from skirmishing nuisances to gigantic roving hordes. The Romans had some opportunities to stop some of these barbarian tribes from coming into Roman land, but they were too concerned with fighting themselves as usual, so they let them settle. This of course, would later come to bite them in the rear end. The Byzantine Empire suffered from many of the same problems with civil wars, however their lands were far richer than the western half so they were able to simply bribe many enemies off, and could better afford to sustain their crazy civil wars. Seriously, read a book on Byzantine rulers. It was like a bizarre parade of constant murders, betrayal, and eye-gouging (Byzantines loved to put out peoples eyes for some reason).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
Mans posted:You know, at least this cat-fight made me think of something. When it comes to North and South America, yes, many colonies did revolt. But a surprising amount of countries in Africa and Asia were still European colonies all the way up to World War 2 and in fact a great many of them fought and contributed soldiers to the war effort. After the war was over they began pressing their European masters for independence, feeling that they had earned it. Some countries caught on quicker than others that they had to let their colonies go. The British, for example, began a slow release program that set up transitional governments for their colonial holdings and eased them into independence. Many of the transitions actually went pretty smoothly at first (until a strongman later came in and took over). One major exception was India in which a horrific bloodbath erupted pretty much immediately between Muslims and Hindus. Over a million people died and led to the break away of Pakistan from India. Other nations, such as France, were more hard-headed and pretty much just waited until the colony revolted before paying them any attention. Portugal took absolutely forever to return their colonies. It took a revolt in 1974 to finally set most of them free. -- Anyway when it comes to colonial holdings its really a mixed bag. Some colonies were administered fairly decently well, providing infrastructure, education, and technological improvements for the populace in exchange for some foreign oppression and stealing of their natural resources. Other colonies could be an absolute nightmare. The classic example is the Belgian Congo, which was run as a for-profit business. The story I've always heard (which may not be true) is that company soldiers had to account for every bullet they fired with a severed human hand to prove they shot someone and didn't waste it. So the company soldiers would go hunting, shoot a boar or whatever, then find a random Congonian and chop their hand off to bring it back to base so they wouldn't get reprimanded. I never checked to see if that was true or not but regardless the Belgian Congo was a horrific place to be and inspired the book Heart of Darkness. Even other European leaders were disturbed by how brutal the place was run. But anyway, the most common answer for most colonies would be a bit of both. Some development by their colonial masters improving their quality of life along with some brutal crackdowns when the populace got antsy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:As I said, colonial regimes depended on the help of local collaborators to function. Over time African officials educated at missionary schools, and in exceptional cases at European institutions, filled most of the lower and middling ranks of colonial officialdom. This was partly because they were obviously more familiar with the way things worked in their homelands, and partly because it was much easier and cheaper to hire a literate African to be a postal clerk than to pay an Englishman enough that it was worth his while to move to Nigeria to do the same job. At a more basic brute-force level, colonial armies made up of African soldiers were necessary to maintain order, and literate Africans were needed to fill out the ranks of commissioned and non-commissioned officers. This unavoidably created a population that was educated and, as government officials or military leaders, used to being in position of authority over other Africans while at the same time remaining acutely aware of their subordination to their immediate European superiors. With access to European writings on nationalism, they developed their own ideology and became the nucleus for and leaders of national independence movements. Just to expand on this a little, to gain control of an area in the first place generally most colonizers used a "divide and conquer" political and military strategy. They'd cast about for the most powerful local organizations, and offer to increase their power/wealth through European training and weaponry. If they accepted, the colonizers would move in with some forces and drill the locals in European style combat and tactics. Inevitably the enemy of the collaborators would stir up a racket, or the Europeans would just come up with an excuse and march over there and blast them to pieces, claiming their land in the process. The local strongmen the Europeans would be backing, of course, became utterly dependent on his colonial allies to maintain his power, allowing the colonizers to slowly gain more and more control. If the local bigshot decided not to play along with the colonizing force then a show of force would be arranged. This generally consisted of an artillery barrage, shelling of a coastal area via ship, or a land battle where the colonizer could bring his firepower advantage to bear. After demonstrating their power, different factions would be lining up to team up with the colonial powers and the Europeans used this to play them against each other. The British in particular were masters of this tactic. Its what allowed them to gain control of India, a country far larger and many times more heavily populated than itself. There was always someone willing to cut a deal if the British would help them against their enemy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2011 09:11
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Truman told Stalin that the Americans had "a new weapon of unusual destructive force" on July 24th, about two weeks before the first bomb was dropped. The Soviets were working on their own bomb at this point and Stalin probably knew what Truman was talking about, though Stalin pulls off an unbelievable poker face if he does. Tough to be sure what happened because most retellings were being retold at the height of the Cold War when everyone wanted to make their side look better and the other side worse. A collection of different people's retellings of the conversation: Stuff like this is why Stalin is one of the most fascinating characters in history.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:why the modern Russian states soldiers are so horrifyingly bad. Probably a combination of: -Conscripted -Paid poorly -Treated like absolute poo poo -No longer even have any ideology to fight for -Mostly used for counter-insurgency work, which they not even remotely prepared for
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2011 17:28
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:The War of the Triple Alliance also has plenty of trench and infantry waves going on too, and that was totally overlooked by everybody (and it still is). The War of the Triple Alliance is also one of the most brutal and bizarre wars ever fought. Seriously, read about it. A French hooker and Paraguay's dictator leader fell in love and ruled the country together in such an insane and belligerent fashion that they united almost all their squabbling South American neighbors against them. The Paraguayan people, being mostly isolated and oblivious to the outside world, went along meekly with these increasingly insane wars until between 60-90% of Paraguay's male population was dead from war and disease.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 17:28
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I think the statistics show that US soldiers in the pacific took very few prisoners. The debate, is whether that came down to the Japanese being suicidal and trying to kill Marines, or whether US Marines just didn't give a gently caress about taking prisoners and just summarily executed Japanese prisoners when they could. I tend to think it was more the latter, spurred on by rumors about the former. Based on accounts I've read by marines in the Pacific it was a combination of a bunch of different things. For one, the Japanese rarely attempted to surrender, and when they did sometimes they'd pull stuff like pretending to surrender then detonating a grenade to take some Marines with them, or planting land mines under their wounded comrades so when the Americans attempted to remove them they'd be blown up. So that alone made Marines hesitant to accept prisoners. To add to that the Japanese themselves killed many soldiers who tried to surrender, or subjected their POW's to such horrendous conditions that they'd die anyway. So there was this mutual feeling of "take no prisoners" among both sides. Plus, the Marines and Japanese straight up hated each other. Unlike the western front where there was at least a pretense of rules of war in the pacific it was downright nasty, brutal, and mean. The series "The Pacific" does a pretty good job of showing just how dehumanizing and horrible the whole theater was. It has a slow start, but its really remarkable once it gets into the meat of the conflict.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
Keep posting stuff about the Korean war, its fascinating.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
asbo subject posted:Its not a colloquialism, or if it is, it is an English colloquialism. Any Englishman would understand it. English is the language of Englishmen. The burden of ensuring communication is understood lies with the one communicating the message, in this case the Englishman. Not to mention his duty to provide clear concise reports to his superior, which "a bit sticky" probably doesn't live up to. It'd be like if an American was in charge of the unit and reported to his superior that the situation was "forth and long" they'd have no idea what the gently caress he was talking about unless they watched American football.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
cargo cult posted:This doesn't have much to do with military history but I remember learning about some Swedish king who, as a birthday gift, had a flock of sheep released into a banquet hall which he then slaughtered with a broadsword. This guy supposedly got so fat later in life that he would ride horses to their deaths in battle and other ridiculous stuff. In the vein of wacky poo poo European royalty got into: I have a book about Spanish history(which is incredibly fascinating by the way) that explains how one particular Spanish King died. He was sitting in his room one day by a fire brazier and he was getting too hot, so he rang the bell to summon his servant to put out the fire. Well, the servant was off somewhere or asleep, so no matter how much the King rang his bell the servant didn't come. Furious, the King just kept ringing the poo poo out the bell and pouting next to the fire, getting hotter and hotter. Eventually, he passed out from heat exhaustion, never woke up, and died. Now, this King wasn't crippled in any way, or sick. He was just too stubborn and aloof to get up and move away from the fire because his servant was supposed to take care of that. So he died, like a chump. Back to military history though, I highly recommend everyone pick up a book about Spanish military adventures, particularly the conquest of Central and South America. Holy poo poo, some crazy stuff there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
Sorry to go back to WW2 but something just occurred to me: What happened to all the Italian soldiers on the Eastern front when Italy surrendered and joined the Allies? Did the Germans round them up? Did they keep fighting, or what? That must have been one hell of a lovely situation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
5inc posted:That's an interesting idea, but doesn't it give a very specific origin to a very broad concept? I'm not sure there's ever been a military that would exchange "quick and absolute" for "drawn-out and half-assed". Even if your soldiers aren't farmers, when they're out on campaign they're still not home doing other things, like protecting the regime, or training, or building public works. And I'm not sure there's ever been many soldiers who always preferred being "over there" to "back home", so extended foreign campaigns have always seemed to bring with them increasing threats of desertion and mutiny the longer they go on. There's also the fact that doing anything outdoors tends to suck a lot more come winter than it does in summer, so winter fighting seems to come with increased attrition rates to disease and general exhaustion, and that's likely to be doubly true for a foreign invader who doesn't know the land and can't trust the populace. So even if your guys don't have to be home to bring in the harvest, it's still in your interest to wrap things up before the weather turns sour. Well Hansons theory for how decisive infantry battles developed in Greece is more complex than Snackbar listed but thats because he was giving the readers digest version. At the time the Greeks were developing their heavy infantry style of battle the usual mode of warfare in most other places of the world was fluid and based mainly around skirmishing and raiding (Remember that we're talking like way old school here). Bands of light infantry would run into each other, pelt each other with missile weapons, fight briefly, then pull back and maneuver around each other. Horsemen would attempt to surprise enemy forces or raid settlements. Surprise attacks to destroy enemy crops or civilians were very common. Pretty much how American Indians tribes would fight each other, but on a bigger scale. Those large armies that did exist were mainly comprised of poorly armed slaves that had been pressed into service and had little discipline or will to fight. Anyway, in Greece there were no professional militaries (aside from Sparta). All armies were made up of volunteer citizens that could join or leave at will, and provided their own equipment. It was considered civic duty to join the army on its campaign and fight bravely. Those who did not show up to fight or ran away were ostracized and would lose status, and those who performed well would enjoy prestige and admiration. The generals would even sometimes be elected by popular support from the army itself. Anyway, since the troops were all volunteer citizens it was extremely important to make campaigns as quick as possible otherwise the general would lose support and the troops would say "gently caress it" and go home. Add to that the terrain of Greece, which is extremely rough and mountainous which left only a small amount of areas where large numbers of soldiers could maneuver and fight, and you pretty much know where your enemy was going to be. Imagine two cities with a mountain pass between them. In the middle of that mountain pass is one field. Now, if those two cities are a war, there is no way you're going to make economic war on their city without going through their army first. Since you can't maneuver around the enemy army, the only thing you can do is try and go through them. So, with maneuvering being mostly out the window, fighting developed towards large slow blocks of heavy infantry to confront the enemy in the limited fighting areas and drive them from the field to obtain a decisive victory so that your citizen troops could go home. The other factor that citizen troops brought to the field was their relatively high morale and discipline compared to troops from many regions who tended to either be slaves or serfs pressed into duty against their will. As free citizen volunteers they exerted strong peer pressure on each other to fight bravely. The hoplite formations themselves depended almost completely on mutual cooperation and discipline to operate. Each mans shield covered the man next to him, and it was usually when the formation that came apart that would spell doom for the men inside. So there you have the birth of the decisive battle fought primarily by heavy infantry. As Greek influence spread and they encountered other cultures this way of doing battle spread as well because determined disciplined heavy infantry could usually crush any forces not designed for decisive battle they met in combat and were able to achieve decisive strategic objectives that skirmishing and raiding could not. That being said, not all terrain and cultures favored these types of tactics so in many places they did not fully take hold, especially in places with large expanses of open terrain, for instance in the East. Class Warcraft fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Jan 24, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Now, this seems slightly contrary to my understanding of later 5th and 4th century warfare, where mercenaries, especially Arcadians, were much more common than previously, the Ten Thousand being the most famous example I can think of. Would they only hire their services out for enough time to fight and farm? I'm talking like a couple thousand BC here. 5inc posted:That's great stuff - thanks. I remember that the Samnites gave the Romans fits for some of the reasons you mentioned. The Romans were still using the phalanx, and the mountainous territory of the Samnites played hell with it. That, plus the Samnites were naturally masters of the mountain combat their home required. IIRC, that was at least partially the motivation for the adoption of the maniple system. Well for a long time Greece was pretty isolated. So, in a way, their method of warfare was allowed to grow on its own and become fairly ritualized. So the decisive battle because the tactical norm, but it also became the cultural norm and what the vast majority of Greek citizens expected out of a war from their commanders. Generals who avoided the decisive battle or delayed things would face desertion and ridicule from their men as well as censure back home. So in a way, the democratic ideas made their way into the armies as well. So, the soldiers expected one or two decisive battles, and then they could go home. Campaigns that ground on and on they did not expect and would grow restless and vocal. Now, eventually as Greeks met with other cultures this began to change campaigns dragged on versus other groups of peoples. The Peloponnesian wars also went on for years, with both sides avoiding many decisive battles leading to much shouting and gnashing of teeth from the populaces of both sides.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:I'd imagine the 1200s or so. Genghis Khan would have destroyed a legion, when you consider that the Romans had trouble enough with the Parthians (who also used cavalry very effectively) I think a Mongol tumen would have made relatively short work of a legion. Any other European army from the same period would probably have lost to a legion though, simply because they were mostly knights/peasant levies and not professionals. I would think that the advances in metallurgy would spell the doom for the Roman legions on that basis alone.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I think people are focusing too much on the military side of this battle. The decision about war and peace is a political decision. I have read the essay more than once and I absolutely agree that Sealion, as it was planned, would not have worked out. However, the essay was written well after the fact. Not all of the information presented in it would have been available to the british government. Considering Churchill made a relatively well known speech promising to defend every inch of British soil against an invasion, and threatened the use of chemical weapons against the landing sites, it seems fairly clear that he and others in the British government thought an invasion was both probable and feasible. Is it entirely unthinkable that, in this situation, a different British Government (Churchill, for example, having been killed in an air raid) would agree to a cease-fire? This is something I think a lot of people overlook when they study military matters. When democracies go to war the entire course of the war can be drastically changed by an election at home. The best example I can think of is the American Civil War. In 1864 the war had ground to a stalemate and the Union had just finished losing something ridiculous like 100,000 men in clashes between Grant and Lee's armies. Add to that the unpopularity of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Democratic party was ready to field an extremely effective anti-war campaign with McClellan as the candidate. The Democrats advocated a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement for the South to return. The South tried to encourage such hopes as much as possible, because a ceasefire would essentially be a victory for them. Of course, they had no intention of ever re-entering the Union. Anyway, everyone thought the Republicans were doomed. Lincoln himself acknowledged that his chances for re-election were slim. However, just in the nick of time the Union scored several victories, including the capture of Atlanta. Lincoln was re-elected and the war went on. However, had those critical couple of months gone differently a Democrat could have been elected and the South effectively won the civil war. As for the British in WW2, I'm not too familiar with British politics but I don't think its beyond the realm of possibility that if the war was going so badly for the UK that the people wouldn't throw out the ruling party and elect an opposition party. Another thing to consider is that many of the British colonies (India in particular) were not-exactly gung-ho over getting dragged into another World War and only did so with the expectation that afterwards they would be granted more autonomy. In a scenario where British is getting its rear end kicked at sea and by air leaving the commonwealth to fend for itself I can imagine there being significant pressure to push for a cessation of hostilities.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
The British were absolutely horrified when Singapore fell and the entire garrison surrendered. Something like 80,000 British and colonial troops were captured in Singapore alone. It was extremely embarrassing for them, especially since they considered it a second Gibraltar or something.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:The Polish occupation of Bohumin wasn't really a war. It was part of the area demanded by Germany, but with a Polish majority, for which reason Poland and Czechoslovakia had fought for it in 1919. Czechoslovakia was in no condition to go to war over it, so they withdrew their forces and the next day Poland annexed the area. Likewise the Hungarian occupation of southern Slovakia in 1938 and Ruthenia in 1939 were unopposed. The Romanians were the only country in WW2 to fight on (and get attacked by) every side. First they fought with the Axis, mainly against the Soviets. The Allies also proceeded to bomb the poo poo out of their oil fields. Then, when Barbarossa went tits up, they tried to join the Allies to escape the wrath of the Soviets. Unfortunately they did it too early and the retreating Germans kicked the poo poo out of them. Then the Soviets arrived, laughed at their attempt to join the Allies, took them over, and made them fight against the Germans. Basically, the Romanians got bent over the table by every party.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I'm not sure why this makes a difference - I mean, I could argue the Romanians never fought the Imperial Japanese Army, either! The Finns fought both alongside the Nazis against their immediately-adjacent Ally, then changed sides and fought more to boot the Nazis out. It's still pretty much the same situation. I'm sure it made a difference to the Romanians, first getting bombed by the Allies, then getting slaughtered by the Soviets, then getting the poo poo kicked out of the by the Germans.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:That is a post-war ahistorical division that was only created to distance the 'good guys' from Stalin. Historically Soviets were considered as Allies before USA had even entered the war. Eg. when the Inter-Allied Council adopted the principles of the Atlantic Charter in September 1941, USSR was present. The Inter-Allied Council is one way to determine who the Allies were. USSR was also a founding member of United Nations on 1 January 1942. United Nations is the other way. Soviets pass both requirements. I don't think its quite so black and white. The Soviets, after all, were closer to allies with the Germans prior to 1941 than the Allies. Also worth considering is the lengths the Allies went to to conceal military information from the Soviets. Most notably, the development of the atom bomb. I would say the were, at best, co-belligerents against the Axis, not allies. At any rate, contemporaries at the time certainly saw a difference, which is why Axis units fought tooth and nail to surrender to the Americans or British rather than the Soviets and Romanian endured a beat-down from the Germans to join the American-British alliance rather the much closer Soviets.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:Anybody know any good books on Napoleonic tactics and warfare? I wanted to read up on it after playing Napoleon Total War. I've got a recommendation for an excellent that isn't Napoleonic but same ballpark. It's called Crucible of War. It's about the Seven Years War (also known as the French and Indian War) fought from 1756-1763. It was one of the first wars fought on multiple continents, and a huge reason why the American Revolution happened. It can be seen as sort of a "preview" of what was to come in the Napoleonic era. Anyway its an excellent book that gives you a great foundation to understand what happened afterwards and how history turned out the way it did in the following decades.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
Having gone on a bit of a Civil War binge lately I've found the consensus generally falls that Grant was basically an alcoholic in that once he started drinking he had a hard time stopping. Since the term didn't really exist at the time people referred to him as a drunkard. The reality though is he, and those around him, understood that once he started drinking he would continue to binge drink, so for the most part he abstained from alcohol altogether while on campaign with the help of friends like Sherman. He did fall off the wagon a few times for short periods during the war, mainly due to boredom or frustration, most notably during the siege of Vicksburg that dragged on forever. By all accounts though his addiction never had any strategic or battlefield consequences. Despite the urban legend that the rebels were able to surprise the Union forces at the battle of the Shiloh because Grant was drunk, the truth was that Grant simply hadn't expected an offensive Confederate action and was just plain ol' unprepared.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Not to be all callous about it, but the Indian Wars did just that, and it utterly crushed native resistance in the US. Well the fact that the vast majority of the native population had died due to disease after encounters with settlers made that a feasible option. If that hadn't happened wiping out the Indians would have been far more difficult. edit: gently caress beaten
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 07:22
|
|
|
It's important because for a number of reasons. Just off the top of my head: -It kept the Union from using black soldiers for much of the war -It made anti-slavery acts like the Emancipation Proclamation so contentious that it nearly lost Lincoln the presidency in the 1864 election -The Union had to bend over backwards to keep certain states from withholding troops and war material because of anger at anti-slavery acts, primarily in areas like Illinois. Class Warcraft fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Apr 4, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:
I'd be interested in watching this video if you can find it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:What was special about the Eastern Roman Empire's navy? I ask cause my understanding of them is that they'll "basically" Rome for a couple of centuries after Rome's fall. And Rome's navy was put legionnaires on boats, board other boats (maybe use a grappling hook). I'm assuming he was talking about Greek fire which, as you might imagine, would gently caress your poo poo up if you're standing on a bunch of wooden boats.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
The Thirty Years war was so destructive to the area in which it was fought that the population of German was reckoned to have been reduced by as much as 40% by the end of the war, with certain areas practically depopulated and burnt to the ground. So, yeah, way worse than the 100 years war.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:The shako is made of felt and leather. They were so light the bigger ones needed that chin strap to stay on. It's kind of weird to think about, but anyone who learned to play an instrument in high school has pretty much worn a Napoleonic uniform because of marching band. That being said, shakos aren't actually all that uncomfortable at all. The heavy wool jackets get extremely hot though, and are awful to wear when its hot outside. 
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
KildarX posted:Did officers ever get bounties put on them by a national army? Or was it always just a practical matter that you shot the guy leading the guys shooting at you and there was no need to have people singled out specifically. It was considered somewhat "bad sport" to specifically target officers, but of course it happened all the time anyway.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
KildarX posted:England if you want to mess with France, and vis versa. The Crusades [Dunno if they used mercenaries] They wouldn't have to be far far away, just far away enough that it would be a huge pain in the rear end for them to come back your way. Becuase they would likely switch sides and suddenly your enemy has all your mercenaries as well as information on your forces and plan of attack.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
The strange thing about the purge is while it murdered thousands of completely innocent people it really did solidify Stalin as the one and only person capable of leading the USSR. When Barbarossa came, Stalin was so shocked he basically shut down for a time and couldn't/wouldn't make any decisions. Everyone else in the higher levels of government pretty much froze as well, with no one willing to try and take over for Stalin or give orders in his absence. At one point someone tried to get Molotov to sign orders while Stalin was locked away and Molotov said something to the effect of "signing it would be his own death warrant". Everyone realized that anything that could be construed later as attempting to wrest power away from Stalin would end in their untimely death, so they just waited until Stalin returned. It's interesting to think about how differently things might have turned out if the purge had only been slightly more or less vicious. If it had been any more thorough some of the great military leaders that the USSR depended on to win the war, such as Chukov, might have been liquidated. On the other hand, if it hadn't happened at all, or had been less thorough, the USSR might well have collapsed into political infighting during the darkest days of the Barbarossa. Also, its ironic to note that after the great purge, the politburo came to the conclusion that things had gotten way out of hand, and many of the most enthusiastic participants of the purge were in turn liquidated as traitors.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
Not exactly military history per se but can anyone recommend a book on the Hatfield-McCoy feud? I just watched the History channel mini-series about it and it sparked my interest.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
KurdtLives posted:Wasn't the Mexican-American War very controversial in the US? Henry David Thoreau went to prison for not paying taxes in protest. A lot of American officers involved were quickly disillusioned about the motives and conduct of that war. They rightfully recognized it as a transparent land-grab against their weaker neighbor. If my memory serves me correctly Grant was particularly bitter about having participated in it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
Going back to the Crimean War. Was that the first instance of France and the UK fighting on the same side in a conflict?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
While reading Crucible of War I discovered that that whole siege and ensuing massacre as they left the fort actually happened and was, suprisingly, pretty accurately portrayed by the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 00:01
|
|