|
Rivers tend to have things like settlements on them that might be quite important in determining which bank you have to attack or defend.
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:Dunno if anyone can help me with this, but I was planning to download a Soviet WW2 general's memoirs but my phone died and I forgot his last name. It started with an R and it's not Rokossovskiĭ Rzhukov (the r is silent)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:Dunno if anyone can help me with this, but I was planning to download a Soviet WW2 general's memoirs but my phone died and I forgot his last name. It started with an R and it's not Rokossovskiĭ Rodion Malinovsky?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
There's also Pavel Rotmistrov and Sergei Rudenko.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
I managed to track back where I originally saw it cited after a lil while searching (in one of David Stahel's books) and it looks like the guy I was looking for was Rokossovsky
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:impressive, but still a tier below donald trump inventing his own civil war battle Would turn red?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Which is why no sane person ever defends in front of a river if they can help it. But according to thread logic, generals have been getting it wrong for 5 thousand years or more since you should deny the river to attackers or it will facilitate their offensive actions. You used three words from Old Norse in this post. You are literally proving how much influence Old Norse had on English just by talking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Which is why no sane person ever defends in front of a river if they can help it. But according to thread logic, generals have been getting it wrong for 5 thousand years or more since you should deny the river to attackers or it will facilitate their offensive actions. First you're confusing questions about tactics and logistics, but more importantly that is a thing that happened what are you talking about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 03:59
|
|
|
Tulip posted:First you're confusing questions about tactics and logistics, but more importantly that is a thing that happened what are you talking about. I was clearly being facetious. The thesis being presented by Cryo, Tomm, and others is that it is worse to have waterways such as rivers and oceans since they are conduits for invasion and hinder the defender. Only goons would find this statement controversial. MikeC posted:If you are saying that rivers alone don't stop armies, sure. But rivers and the ability to cross or deny the enemy the ability to cross them have shaped battles and campaigns right up to the modern day (look at the current situation at Kherson). It is always a benefit to have a river line to defend either tactically or operationally and always a hindrance to the force that must, for whatever reason, find passage across a water obstacle especially if they are under pressure. But Tomm and co will cite things like English kings coming back from exile as proof that oceans and waterways actually hurt defenders or made them more vulnerable ignoring things like the fact that the Romans held a river line as the defensive frontier for almost half a millennium or that the Mongols managed to conquer almost the entire Eurasian landmass but losing a couple of fleets to storms made them decide that maybe Japan wasn't really worth it. As I said, who am I to question such great minds? Carry on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 04:51
|
|
|
MikeC posted:I was clearly being facetious. The thesis being presented by Cryo, Tomm, and others is that it is worse to have waterways such as rivers and oceans since they are conduits for invasion and hinder the defender. You petty little poo poo. You know you're mischaracterizing their statements and you can't even be bothered to spell their names right. No one has made this bizarre point you keep talking about, you were just hilariously wrong and now you feel embarrassed. Part of discussion and growth is admitting that you're wrong about things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 05:02
|
|
|
Admitting you're wrong and scurrying away is not The Goon Way
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 05:35
|
|
|
MikeC posted:I was clearly being facetious. The thesis being presented by Cryo, Tomm, and others is that it is worse to have waterways such as rivers and oceans since they are conduits for invasion and hinder the defender. A monument in how to not post. So, this is not me engaging with MikeC because he is impervious to historical data and historical methods, but a question to the thread. I hope I'm not mixing up with another one of the history threads but this is the second time this year I can recall a poster coming in with a nuclear hot take that is easily and readily contradicted by facts so readily available the wrong poster accidentally ends up having to use them in their own posts. The other poster was insistent that the English did not have any intent or interest in cleansing Ireland of the Irish, so to me I'm starting to wonder if there's a pattern here with historical memory of English military actions. And I don't think its just goons to be honest. It wasn't until sometime in college that I learned the English lost the Hundred Years War - I'd heard so much about Agincourt and Crecy over and over again that I'd gotten the impression that the war was just the English stomping on the stupid French over and over again. Which is of course comically wrong. So is there some broader deal here going on with 20th and 21st century historical memory of premodern and early modern England?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 05:52
|
|
|
MikeC posted:I was clearly being facetious. The thesis being presented by Cryo, Tomm, and others is that it is worse to have waterways such as rivers and oceans since they are conduits for invasion and hinder the defender. lol you can apologize and just hold an L for a bit and everyone forgives you and forgets and stops caring. instead you give us a meltdown in the milhist thread of all things! wild. why do this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 07:10
|
|
|
Tulip posted:
That's interesting, since I always associated the 100 Years War with Joan of Arc. But then again, much of that association also came via Age of Empires II, so...
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 07:13
|
|
|
The thing I learned about the 100 years war was that the English proudly did a lot of murder and mayhem in the French countryside, won an entire TWO (holy poo poo guys TWO) battles and then British historians didn't feel like talking about the rest of the 100 years of unfortunate diplomatic incidents. The rest came to me when I played Europa Universalis 4 and spent 5 seconds looking at the starting situation for England and France.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 07:19
|
|
|
I didn't understand that there was an assumed winner. Do you guys think anyone really "won" in The Hundred Years War?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 07:22
|
|
|
It probably wouldn't have lasted for a hundred years if one side had been winning all the battles all the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 07:23
|
|
|
I assumed the English lost it. Not really sure anyone won it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 08:00
|
|
|
The biggest take away I got from the Hundred Years War was how Monarchy is an extremely unstable and fragile system. Henry gets pretty close to victory and then he and his son die and the result is an incredibly quick rolling up of all English positions in France and the plunging of England into a series of civil wars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 08:01
|
|
|
Tulip posted:And I don't think its just goons to be honest. It wasn't until sometime in college that I learned the English lost the Hundred Years War - I'd heard so much about Agincourt and Crecy over and over again that I'd gotten the impression that the war was just the English stomping on the stupid French over and over again. Which is of course comically wrong. So is there some broader deal here going on with 20th and 21st century historical memory of premodern and early modern England? Regarding the Hundred Years War I think it is mostly that if English is your first language then you will hear/learn more about events from an English perspective then a French perspective. I was raised in England so stuff like Agincaurt and Crecy were given focus and English losses were brushed over and I assume it would have been the opposite if I was French. As in there would be plenty of focus on French heroics and no time spent on French disasters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 08:11
|
|
|
Eh, some of us Finns manage to confuse victory with loss in Winter War and that lasted for whole 3 months! English/British need to get on our level! Always been partial to the self-deprecating line from Väinö Linna, paraphrased: "The socialist union of soviet states may have won, but the small and gutsy Finland crossed the finish line as a good runner-up!" (but that was more about the whole nasty business, not just the Winter War). This discussion brings up a question about how many wars have there been, where there's disagreement about the victorious party? I know from reading about history discussions that one classical example is the war between British empire and USA during Napoleonic Wars. I guess a lot of wars that ended in negotiated peace where one side wasn't just dictating terms and both got concessions from the other would potentially fall into this category, especially in more nationalist circles of respective nations?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 08:17
|
|
|
Glah posted:Eh, some of us Finns manage to confuse victory with loss in Winter War and that lasted for whole 3 months! English/British need to get on our level! Always been partial to the self-deprecating line from Väinö Linna, paraphrased: "The socialist union of soviet states may have won, but the small and gutsy Finland crossed the finish line as a good runner-up!" (but that was more about the whole nasty business, not just the Winter War).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 08:31
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:Regarding the Hundred Years War I think it is mostly that if English is your first language then you will hear/learn more about events from an English perspective then a French perspective. I was raised in England so stuff like Agincaurt and Crecy were given focus and English losses were brushed over and I assume it would have been the opposite if I was French. As in there would be plenty of focus on French heroics and no time spent on French disasters. I have the impression that the French perspective about Hundred Years War revolves much around Jeanne d'Arc and the sorry state the French military position was before she became the symbol, martyr and turning point for the war. Can't have a good comeback story without going through the past difficulties, so I'd imagine that things like Agincourt and English domination would need to have been internalized in French narrative. Just like the Allied narrative about WW2. You have the German domination of continental Europe, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain and then the comeback in Normandy. Or in Soviet case, going through the early disasters ending in Battle of Berlin. Wouldn't make much sense if people just talked about Normandy landings or battle of Stalingrad in these cases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 08:32
|
|
|
Nessus posted:At this point I believe that Japan, Germany, and (arguably for a minute there) the Soviet successor-state had won the real control of the world. At this point though I'm beginning to think the real winner of World War 2 was the real heroes all this time, the people we were all rooting for. That's right: Mexico. Finland actually won the Winter War: Soviet Union became capitalist just like us, and there is a Hesburger francise restaurant in Moscow! I call this the Vietnam War gambit I've learned from industrious American commentators. Although what with the Ukraine war, Hesburgers withdrew from Russia, so I guess the Winter War isn't really settled yet....
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 08:37
|
|
|
Glah posted:Finland actually won the Winter War: Soviet Union became capitalist just like us, and there is a Hesburger francise restaurant in Moscow! I call this the Vietnam War gambit I've learned from industrious American commentators. Although what with the Ukraine war, Hesburgers withdrew from Russia, so I guess the Winter War isn't really settled yet.... Russia -> Germany -> America -> Vietnam and remains in Vietnam's hand to this day, since the last major war I can remember Vietnam having was that time they got sick of the Khmer Rouge's poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 08:45
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This supports my theory that the Roman Empire title belt went something like: This begs the question about whose the original holder of the title belt? As we know from Virgil, Romans were the descentants of Trojans. So the title would have passed from Trojans to Greek to back to Roman hands. But who did the Trojans get it from? Atlanteans?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 09:13
|
|
|
Glah posted:This begs the question about whose the original holder of the title belt? As we know from Virgil, Romans were the descentants of Trojans. So the title would have passed from Trojans to Greek to back to Roman hands. But who did the Trojans get it from? Atlanteans? Aliens 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 12:07
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Would turn red? A great very many people were shot there and the civil war lasted several years. Many historians are saying that this was a yearly occurrence, hence it would turn red multiple times. It makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 12:08
|
|
|
MikeC posted:wtf Dude, strawmanning aside, I don't know if I ever would have said anything if you hadn't kept using grandiose, sweeping, and easily falsifiable statements like "always," "no sane general," "five thousand years of military history [agrees with me]," or the truly spectacular No True Scotsman of "Only invasions that successfully commit cultural genocide count." Is it really that hard to acknowledge that sometimes, rivers and oceans can benefit the attacker? Tulip posted:And I don't think its just goons to be honest. It wasn't until sometime in college that I learned the English lost the Hundred Years War - I'd heard so much about Agincourt and Crecy over and over again that I'd gotten the impression that the war was just the English stomping on the stupid French over and over again. Which is of course comically wrong. So is there some broader deal here going on with 20th and 21st century historical memory of premodern and early modern England? I think it might just be an artifact of the fact that we're mostly Anglophones here - there's plenty of bad historical teachings and takes elsewhere. My father, who's Taiwanese, still has the vague idea that China was never very aggressive and only wanted purely symbolic and peacefully acquired tributes from other nations as an ego booster. I also once read a People's Daily editorial smugly proclaiming that that, unlike the violent Westerners,, the Chinese invented gunpowder but never used it for violent purposes (though of course that's a People's Daily editorial and not much except as a propaganda rag) Occasionally sometimes you run across a Chinese belief that a fundamental difference between China and the West is that modern Western culture is inherently biased their by medieval beliefs of the importance of noble blood in which virtue is inherent to you at birth (as proof, citing superhero movies where superheroes simply get their powers passed on to them gratis somehow), whereas Chinese medieval culture instead emphasizes taking examinations to rise in life, thus creating a culture of dedication, self-improvement and hard work (as proof, citing Chinese wuxia/xianxia stories about cultivation where heroes gain their powers by constant mediation, training and adventures).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 12:23
|
|
|
Speaking of bad historical teachings, my Danish history lessons back in elementary school included the story of Nelson putting the spyglass in front of his eye-patch and proclaimed that he saw no flag of surrender, so the British kept firebombing Copenhagen. It was many many years later that I learned about Nelson having been dead for about...half a year? When that bombardment took place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 13:14
|
|
|
SerthVarnee posted:Speaking of bad historical teachings, my Danish history lessons back in elementary school included the story of Nelson putting the spyglass in front of his eye-patch and proclaimed that he saw no flag of surrender, so the British kept firebombing Copenhagen. It was many many years later that I learned about Nelson having been dead for about...half a year? When that bombardment took place. That's a mixup with the Battles of Copenhagen. The conversation where Nelson puts his telescope to his patched eye and said, "I really do not see the signal!" was in 1801 during the First Battle of Copenhagen, which was a naval battle. Nelson died in 1805. Then there was a Second Battle of Copenhagen in 1807, which was more of a bombardment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 13:20
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I didn't understand that there was an assumed winner. The English failed to press their claim on the French throne and ended up only holding Calais on the continent, so they sure as hell lost, which seems to leave the French the winner by process of elimination?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 13:22
|
|
|
Something to keep in mind re: who won a war, is that it is entirely dependent on who achieved their policy objectives. This can lead to some weird poo poo where both sides can reasonably claim a partial win, or at least a face saving one. The Winter War is a good example of this. The Finns were not in a position to hold off the Red Army forever. You can make the case that they were defeated in the field. But they held out long enough to get a negotiated settlement that wasn't becoming another SSR. That by itself is a pretty clear win as far as Finnish policy makers are concerned. Meanwhile the Russians carved off a chunk of their frontier. Me, I don't think that tiny strip of land was the initial objective, but it's enough to claim a W for propaganda purposes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 13:27
|
|
|
SerthVarnee posted:Speaking of bad historical teachings, my Danish history lessons back in elementary school included the story of Nelson putting the spyglass in front of his eye-patch and proclaimed that he saw no flag of surrender, so the British kept firebombing Copenhagen. It was many many years later that I learned about Nelson having been dead for about...half a year? When that bombardment took place. That's what we Danes call "Slaget på Reden", ie. the first naval battle of Copenhagen. E: Ak, slået 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 13:30
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
That "tiny strip of land" added up to about 10% of entire Finland together with other territorial concessions. It also contained the second-largest city and displaced 400 000 people (11% of the population), making them refugees, btw.  For the point of view of Soviet strategists, taking Karelian Isthmus also denied Finland access to Lake Ladoga, pushed the borders much further away from Leningrad and took over the strongest defensive fortifications Finland had ever built. In addition, Soviets took a number of strategically important islands in the Gulf, which they were really insisted on getting because they had lingering resentment from the time the British Navy bombarded St Petersburg after crossing Finnish territorial waters past them. And then there's Salla and Kalastajansaarento, but let's leave them aside for now. Warden fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Oct 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 13:55
|
|
|
Huh, looking at a map you're right. For some reason in my head it was smaller.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 13:59
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This supports my theory that the Roman Empire title belt went something like: China invaded in 1979, thus the belt goes to China.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 14:57
|
|
|
How did Russia get the belt? Why did it go to America from Germany, and not back to Russia again? (And presumeably is currently stuck with Afghanistan) Am I missing something? What are the rules of this, anyway?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:How did Russia get the belt? From the vikings. Didn't you see the movie at the Olympics? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkR3-eknssI
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Cessna posted:China invaded in 1979, thus the belt goes to China. But they didn't win. They just went home and pretended it never happened. If that counts as a victory, then the belt might have passed on from China to Russia or India during some small border skirmish. Plausibly making room to pass further to Pakistan or Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 15:12
|
|
