|
sullat posted:Also the slaves had been freed by Lee's father-in-law's will, but he refused to actually let them go. Wow, what a dick.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Wow, what a dick. But then he did, to spite and confuse everyone trying to learn history ages later! What a weirdo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:50
|
|
|
spiky butthole posted:I'm also sure the railway network here was also approved because of a). Rampant money making leading to the underground bubble b). We can move armies around. Not so much a British thing - the government was zealously laissez-faire when it came to the railways for most of the 19th century so they would never do anything as illiberal as suggest a railway be built for military reasons, and certainly not actually get the War Office to build one. Britain didn't have a large standing army, and it didn't really need to be moved internally. It needed to be moved abroad, by sea, hence our fleet of troop-carrying ships. You do see suggested military advantages of railways brought up in prospectuses and in the debates about railway Bills going through parliament - especially for lines going along the south coast or between London and the south coast ports, and military figures often supported such railways individually, but military reasons were always well down the list of 'reasons this railway is being built' after (in roughly descending order) revenue-generation, screwing over your competitor, profit-generation, practical necessity and political advantage. Railways to move armies are much more of a European thing, where governments had much more control over things - either they controlled the national network entirely (like the German states) or they exercised very close control over the planning and construction of rail lines by private companies (like France, where the also government held stakes in the key eastern railways), Austria (which nationalised all but one of its railways between 1880 and 1914), Sweden (where main lines were built and run by the state but branch/local lines were private) or Russia (all lines were private but subject to close government supervision). Lines were regularly planned (or had their plans altered) to ease the movement of troops either internally or to the strategic border(s).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:53
|
|
|
How frustrating must it have been for Lincoln during the early ways years, constantly having to go “those assholes retreated AGAIN?!”
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 11:57
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Chancellorsville was a Union victory I can honestly say this is the first time I've ever seen this argument
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:06
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Russia (all lines were private but subject to close government supervision). Russian railways were sometimes/often paid for with French loans as part of the Quai d'Orsay's strategy of financial diplomacy, particularly after the expiry of the Reinsurance treaty; the terms of the loans usually required a prominent role for French companies in building them, and the design considerations to prominently include troop movements in the event of war with Germany and Austria-Hungary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:28
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:To be fair to Wilson, while he was pretty much as racist as you'd expect somebody who was born in Virginia in 1856, and was the son of one of the Presbyterian ministers who founded the Presbyterian Church in the United States (which was a bunch of Southern Presbytarians who split off from the main Presbyterian church when it condemned secession and slavery), and who's earliest memory was somebody cursing about the election of Abraham Lincoln, he never would have become a Nazi. On the other hand the fourteen words arent Nazi per se, they're white supremacist. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that describes Wilson.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:32
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:How frustrating must it have been for Lincoln during the early ways years, constantly having to go “those assholes retreated AGAIN?!”
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:54
|
|
|
spiky butthole posted:As a Brit we have a lot of Roman roads and stuff left over when they decided our rotten isle wasn't worth it any more. Road chat is interesting as a lot of national infrastructure here like natural gas, telecoms etc... were put in under the guise of national defence. I'm also sure the railway network here was also approved because of a). Rampant money making leading to the underground bubble b). We can move armies around. The American highway system was also partially for military purposes. It's a huge, sprawling country, and the government decided that a good road network connecting all the major urban centers of the country would be a useful thing to have for military reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:58
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The American highway system was also partially for military purposes. It's a huge, sprawling country, and the government decided that a good road network connecting all the major urban centers of the country would be a useful thing to have for military reasons. Is it true that the interstate system was developed after the Pentagon tried to send a convoy of trucks from coast to coast just to see how it would go, and at the end they went "gently caress me, this is far too difficult, we've got to do something about this", or is that just an urban myth that we'd all like to think is true?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 13:28
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Is it true that the interstate system was developed after the Pentagon tried to send a convoy of trucks from coast to coast just to see how it would go, and at the end they went "gently caress me, this is far too difficult, we've got to do something about this", or is that just an urban myth that we'd all like to think is true? Sort of but not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_Motor_Transport_Corps_convoy#Results The convoy already had as one of its objectives encouraging improvements in road construction - the movement to improve road transportation had started prior to that. The other goals of the convoy was a promotional thing for the army, and also to investigate the difficulty of moving military vehicles over long distances by road - i.e. like during a war. The terrain was *supposed* to be challenging. I mean, for actually moving military personnel and material the US already had a functional railway system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 13:38
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Is it true that the interstate system was developed after the Pentagon tried to send a convoy of trucks from coast to coast just to see how it would go, and at the end they went "gently caress me, this is far too difficult, we've got to do something about this", or is that just an urban myth that we'd all like to think is true? This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcontinental_Motor_Convoy E: By SECONDS, I tells ya!  E2: Oh look, Disney (in addition to being anti-Jew and anti-worker) was an even bigger rear end in a top hat than you already knew: quote:They shipped the dangerous film to Disney, who, sadly, only wanted a few "humorous" moments to use in their movie, "The American Highway" (1958). Schadenboner fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 13:39
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:Not quite. The will specified "by this date, or as soon as Arlington is financially able to do without them, whichever comes sooner". Lee freed all Arlington slaves on the exact specified date. His justification for doing so was that his father in law had left the plantation in such a poor state that he could not responsibly free the labor force sooner. I remember reading an article about this some time ago, and it said that the slaves disagreed with Lee's decision and confronted him about it, so he had them whipped. Later, they managed to hire a lawyer and sue for their freedom, but the Civil War intervened before the courts reached a decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 13:54
|
|
|
sullat posted:I remember reading an article about this some time ago, and it said that the slaves disagreed with Lee's decision and confronted him about it, so he had them whipped. Later, they managed to hire a lawyer and sue for their freedom, but the Civil War intervened before the courts reached a decision. It always sucks to lose a retainer but, as reasons go, there are probably worse ones?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 14:08
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:It always sucks to lose a retainer but, as reasons go, there are probably worse ones? The important thing is that the lawyer got paid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
sullat posted:The important thing is that the lawyer got paid. There are few laws of history cast in stronger iron than this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 14:56
|
|
|
sullat posted:I remember reading an article about this some time ago, and it said that the slaves disagreed with Lee's decision and confronted him about it, so he had them whipped. Later, they managed to hire a lawyer and sue for their freedom, but the Civil War intervened before the courts reached a decision. The part about him having a couple of slaves whipped for disagreeing with his refusal to free them immediately and running off is accurate, but all slaves held by Robert Lee via the estate of George Washington Parke Custis were freed in December of 1862, long before the Civil War ended.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 15:19
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The only president with a PhD in history! And the only one who could dance using only the right side of his body!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 15:19
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I can honestly say this is the first time I've ever seen this argument Hooker's position by May 6 was going nowhere, but the Union had brought a massive army that the AoNV hadn't eliminated. While Sedgwick was managing to trade evenly at Fredericksburg, Hooker was sitting around with two fresh Corps, and another with minor losses. The AoNV had taken massive losses and all its divisions were in bad shape but Hooker remained passive and remained at his positions before retreating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:A democratically elected racist is still a racist. Sure. I'm fully agreeing with you that he was a racist. He wasn't a Nazi or a fascist. We've had a bunch of racist presidents. Not so much fascist ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
So my knowledge of the Civil War is p.much limited to having watched that loving series with BVMF around the time it came out (we taped it off the air, although  on that: I don't want PBS kicking down my door?) and a lot of treatments of the early Union commanders seems to be infected by a sort of "Lions led by Donkeys" thing (and probably comorbid with right wing Lost Cause poo poo, see also: "Grant the drunk" and "Grant the corrupt" when he was probably not much drunker or more corrupt than median generals and politicians of the era).Is there anything like a relatively clear-eyed (or "objective", whatever-the-gently caress-that-means) treatment of early Civil War Union commanders? E: Also, is the Lions Led By Donkeys thing even correct about WW1? I mean, I liked Oh What A Lovely War and Blackadder Goes Forth as much as the next guy but the LLBD thing itself was developed by a guy who turned out to be a serious crank/rightist rear end in a top hat so I'm a little  on the whole theory?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
Basically all of Lee’s victories aside from Fredericksburg saw him sustaining nearly just as many casualties as the Union forces, which meant a higher percentage in his smaller army, but for some stupid reason the AoTP kept giving up and going home after every bloody nose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
What period of history, or war, is criminally under represented in (North American) media or haven't had a big budget HBO style adaption recently that people would be hype for? The 30 Years War is disqualified as being too obviously the answer
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 17:06
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What period of history, or war, is criminally under represented in (North American) media or haven't had a big budget HBO style adaption recently that people would be hype for? The Franco-Prussian War could use some light, given how important it was to WWI and thus WWII. The English Civil War is almost unknown in the US, despite forming so much of early American history. For that matter, even the French and Indian War, to say nothing of the Seven Years War as a whole, is largely ignored even though it is the entire reason the American Revolution happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 17:13
|
|
|
I think what the world needs is a character and relationship-driven narrative of American involvement in the European theater of World War 2. It seems like there are some really significant depths to plumb there and I'm unaware of any treatments of such? E: Oh, or the experiences of British civilians on the home front of that same theater? Maybe as the culmination they could actually meet an American (and therefore have a significant life event to share with their children and grandchildren for years to come)? Schadenboner fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What period of history, or war, is criminally under represented in (North American) media or haven't had a big budget HBO style adaption recently that people would be hype for? Spanish Civil War. We haven't had a good take since Land And Freedom, and the dude that made The Wire teased that he'd do it next, but it appears stuck in development hell 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What period of history, or war, is criminally under represented in (North American) media or haven't had a big budget HBO style adaption recently that people would be hype for? Depends on what you mean by "hype." The Spanish-American war is the obvious answer in the American context (lots of action, crazy freebooter volunteers, etc) but it would be pretty controversial. War of 1812 could be interesting, especially if you wanted to do the "Band of Brothers" thing with the crew of one of the famous six frigates. Constitution would be the easy answer and honestly she did have the most impressive career during that war with all kinds of famous incidents that would make for really gripping individual episodes, but President also saw some solid action and would be another good one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:The Franco-Prussian War could use some light, given how important it was to WWI and thus WWII. The English Civil War is almost unknown in the US, despite forming so much of early American history. For that matter, even the French and Indian War, to say nothing of the Seven Years War as a whole, is largely ignored even though it is the entire reason the American Revolution happened. There was I think, an interesting HBO-esque mini series wasn't there on German TV for the German-Danish War? I wonder if they planned to do Franco-Prussian. Schadenboner posted:I think what the world needs is a character and relationship-driven narrative of American involvement in the European theater of World War 2. I mean there are a lot of WW2 Call of Duty games already?  Cyrano4747 posted:Depends on what you mean by "hype." The Spanish-American war is the obvious answer in the American context (lots of action, crazy freebooter volunteers, etc) but it would be pretty controversial. That which you personally, would be very stoked for. Is what I mean by people, as in, "Y'all in the room here with me." 1812 would be cool, I remember reading a book that went really indepth about General Boch and it seemed like things could've gone very different for the American Indian nations if he stayed alive. Albeit that's mainly the books own editorializing about it. Oh man, imagine a series where we get Tecumseh as a major character! Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What period of history, or war, is criminally under represented in (North American) media or haven't had a big budget HBO style adaption recently that people would be hype for? I think the vast majority of American knowledge of the Korean War probably comes from M*A*S*H, and there basically hasn’t been anything about it since that ended in ‘83.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 17:50
|
|
|
I think a Ken Burns does ‘War of 1812/Creek War’ would be great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
So, this might be an extraordinarily specific question but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbC6dLG_dQY All of the flags are carried by people in helmets (and two people who I assume are some sort of honor guard) even when the rest of the unit isn't wearing such: why? Seems to be a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJNBfBr-OGU E:  Twitter is not real life.E2: One of the (I assume) clapping Korean War veterans in the first video looks exactly like if BVMFiL were Korean rather than Russian. 
Schadenboner fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:I think a Ken Burns does ‘War of 1812/Creek War’ would be great. Ken Burns has said he’s going to do the American Revolution sometime this decade so maybe in the 2030s he’ll get around to that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What period of history, or war, is criminally under represented in (North American) media or haven't had a big budget HBO style adaption recently that people would be hype for? Seven Years' War or Korea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What period of history, or war, is criminally under represented in (North American) media or haven't had a big budget HBO style adaption recently that people would be hype for? Recently I've started listening to an ancient Egypt podcast. I would like to say King Narmer's unification war is probably very under-represented. We don't know that much about his time, but we're fairly sure he bashed captives heads' in with a stone scepter/mace. I feel like we could do something with that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:E: Also, is the Lions Led By Donkeys thing even correct about WW1? I mean, I liked Oh What A Lovely War and Blackadder Goes Forth as much as the next guy but the LLBD thing itself was developed by a guy who turned out to be a serious crank/rightist rear end in a top hat so I'm a little For WW1, not really? The generals were about as competent on average as any group of commanders--ranging from horrible to really good, like you'd expect. The major issues are that the sides were, broadly speaking, evenly matched; the front in the West was (relatively) small compared to the amount of men deployed, which allowed the style of trench warfare seen there; and the systems of warfare needed to overcome those two points did not develop overnight (so to speak). So you have for roughly the first couple of years of the war both sides figuring out how to grapple with the new tactical/operational problems they're encountering, and feeling their way to solutions. Unfortunately, this process resulted in an enormous amount of casualties, and the shock of that imprinted itself on the conversation (certainly for the British, I honestly don't know if there's a similar thread in French and German history of the Great War) turning into "well, the Generals were dummies throwing their mens' lives away needlessly!"--that is, Lions Led By Donkeys. Like, there's a reason the generals were behind the lines--they had to try and coordinate battles on a scale that hadn't been tried before while lacking reliable communications. Having them right up at the front line isn't generally helpful, and may actually be detrimental if the general gets tunnel-visioned to the specific area of front near him. So you did have lovely generals, and you had good generals, but that held for both sides and lots of the bad ones got weeded out (either through death, cashiering, or promotion out to "staff positions"). I'm not sure there's any general that I'd point to and say "that guy was a genius" but I also haven't really studied lots of the big names. Haig gets flack for being cold and uncommunicative while sending out hundreds of thousands of guys into the meatgrinder, but.. that's not a horrible response when you're having to make those decisions? He apparently was emotional in other situations and expressed dismay at the least at the cost of the battles.. but that was what was necessary to win. (See: Grant.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
The Allies were also in the position of needing to attack to retake occupied territory, and early WWI technologies conspired to strongly favor the defender. You have rapid-firing, long range small arms, machine guns, wire, quick-firing light artillery, telephones, strategic mobility and speed with trucks and trains, and limited tactical mobility. The only way the Allies were going to achieve their objectives was to attack repeatedly and that by nature was going to entail massive casualties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What period of history, or war, is criminally under represented in (North American) media or haven't had a big budget HBO style adaption recently that people would be hype for? Well, Watchmen definitely proved that there's an audience for depicting the riots/lynchings/coups in American history that schools don't normally touch on. There's a whole lot from the Revolutions Podcast that would make for great series. The revolutions of 1848 seem pretty relevant, and the Mexican Revolution feels like such a dynamic and dramatic mix of characters for and audience to pick and choose their favorite and hope the best happens for them. Although if you really wanted drama and didn't want to fret about modern-day political commentary, the Napoleonic wars might work, either if you made it about all the leaders of Europe clashing or if you held a tighter focus on some region that would have mixed feelings on everything. Like maybe if you focused on Italy, you'd see people hating that the war is coming through, but then you have people considering the pros and cons of napoleonic rule versus their former rulers, and while it's not great that the French started the war, the other countries of Europe are continuing the war, and then you'd hear that for some goddamn reason Napoleon turned on his ally Spain and who the gently caress knows what's going on in France.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
It's a subtle point, but also any General who when asked what his plan to win the next war was replied "I will order everyone to dig a hole and sit in it for four years until the enemy run out of food" would have been sacked as obviously incompetent. There are lots of little counterpoints you can make to the idea that the Generals in WW1 were as a whole incompetent, but the existence of trench systems itself is a pretty clear indication that everyone recognised you couldn't just line up in a field and shoot each other anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
Those DPRK videos threw me down a YouTube hole, now [I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE] about North Korea. Lol,  my weekend.E: Like, the ladies who wave the flags to make people work harder: is that their 9-5 job, is it some sort of tai chi-type communal exercise, is it corvee (moreso than usual I mean), is it punishment, is it a way to get ahead in the local Party establishment? Schadenboner fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Although if you really wanted drama and didn't want to fret about modern-day political commentary, If you do want to fret, the Spanish Civil War is fascinating and timely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 20:54
|
|
