|
steinrokkan posted:What was the best way for a pre-industrial army to defeat a modern fortress with its glacis, bastions, casemates etc. if starving it out was not an option. Something more subtle than burying it in bodies? Mining operations? Sustained artillery fire? Was there a general framework to which commanders adhered, or did they come up with ad hoc solutions based on each individual layout? Slavvy posted:I wonder about the ratio of garrison:wall. The really complex star forts seem like they would need a ridiculous number of men to defend the entire circumference. It seems to follow that if the enemy had numerical superiority they wouldn't be hiding in a fort, so surely just spreading your entire army evenly around the circumference, with a several reserves positioned to take advantage of any breach, would be a decent way of taking a fort? In the first place, although you can defend a fortress with a smaller number of people than a field army, nobody's "hiding"--fortresses and fortifications control strategic locations or protect important population centers, and late 17th and early 18th century warfare was dominated by sieges. Intellectually, this is where it is at. Secondly, the way you take one of these things is by shooting it or blowing part of it up, and then forcing your way into it. Evenly dispersing a bunch of people around the countryside will be useless if they're not involved in one of those tasks. What are they supposed to do while they're waiting for something to happen?
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What was the best way for a pre-industrial army to defeat a modern fortress with its glacis, bastions, casemates etc. if starving it out was not an option. Something more subtle than burying it in bodies? Mining operations? Sustained artillery fire? Was there a general framework to which commanders adhered, or did they come up with ad hoc solutions based on each individual layout? Turn someone on the inside, and have him set fire to/blow up the ammo reserves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:It's a complicated hoop-de-doo which involves shooting them, mining/countermining, and months of working trenches ever-closer to the walls. Yes, you can take the place by storm, but usually that's only after a lot more has been done--since you will need to do a lot more in order to get close enough/make a breach to get through anyway. I guess I'm picturing it wrong. I take it this means there was no real way to scale the walls without first undermining them or reducing them with cannon fire?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
If Total War has taught me anything its that if you give any peasant with a pitchfork a rope, he can scale a fortified wall while under fire in about half a minute.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
handbanana125 posted:You should check out the Roman History / Totally Sweet Ancient history thread. Lots of cool people in there who are all about it, a couple of whom are German if I remember right. Yeah, normally I would. But most of the time it's like the 99% All about Rome thread and ancient Rome isn't that interesting for me. I think my last question about really ancient history got drowned out by hundreds of Rome-posts. Then I just scoff at a certain theory in a completely different thread and get my answer by accident! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I guess I'm picturing it wrong. I take it this means there was no real way to scale the walls without first undermining them or reducing them with cannon fire? The walls are going to be designed to be hard to climb. Unless the sentries are all asleep the wall climbers will learn how much it sucks to be stuck moving slowly on a rope while fully exposed to many angles of fire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
If we're talking a pre-industrial army fighting a modern one, the walls would be the least of their problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I guess I'm picturing it wrong. I take it this means there was no real way to scale the walls without first undermining them or reducing them with cannon fire? veekie posted:The walls are going to be designed to be hard to climb. Unless the sentries are all asleep the wall climbers will learn how much it sucks to be stuck moving slowly on a rope while fully exposed to many angles of fire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Fangz posted:If we're talking a pre-industrial army fighting a modern one, the walls would be the least of their problems. Modern in this case refers to pre-industrial, cca 17th - 18th century, at least the way I meant it in my question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Modern in this case refers to pre-industrial, cca 17th - 18th century, at least the way I meant it in my question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Yep. "Modern fortification" = star forts/Italian Trace/gunpowder artillery (everything to do with it). pos my neg murderhole
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Is there truth to the idea that the North Vietnamese had an ulterior motive to the Tet Offensive where they expected the Vietcong forces to become depleted so much that they wouldn't be a factor politically after the war was over? I swear I read that somewhere or I may have just had a feverdream I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Yeah, normally I would. But most of the time it's like the 99% All about Rome thread and ancient Rome isn't that interesting for me. I think my last question about really ancient history got drowned out by hundreds of Rome-posts. Then I just scoff at a certain theory in a completely different thread and get my answer by accident! I think it's because the Sea People get brought up in the Ancient history thread essentially every other page (exaggeration, but it comes up fairly often) and people get tired of answering it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Is it true that in WWII more Frenchmen died fighting the allies (under the Vichy regime) than fighting the Nazis? Similarly, is it true more Italians died fighting the Nazis (partisans, Esercito del Sud etc.) than fighting the allies?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:Is it true that in WWII more Frenchmen died fighting the allies (under the Vichy regime) than fighting the Nazis? That can't be true, just look at the figures. 85k Frenchmen died defending France in 1940, that's already more than there were Vichy troops stationed in any of the French colonies. Even if every Vichy soldier stationed in Morocco and Algeria had fought to their deaths it wouldn't suffice. The Italy factoid sounds about as credible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:That can't be true, just look at the figures. 85k Frenchmen died defending France in 1940, that's already more than there were Vichy troops stationed in any of the French colonies. Even if every Vichy soldier stationed in Morocco and Algeria had fought to their deaths it wouldn't suffice. The Italy factoid sounds about as credible. It would be a bit closer with the Italy thing. I remember reading an account of an Alpine division suddenly turning on and massacring its Italian counterpart, so the Nazis did inflict huge losses on their old allies after Mussolini was imprisoned and Italy bowed out of the war. Then again, Mussolini's stupidity killed so many Italian soldiers it probably still wasn't even close.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Is there truth to the idea that the North Vietnamese had an ulterior motive to the Tet Offensive where they expected the Vietcong forces to become depleted so much that they wouldn't be a factor politically after the war was over? I swear I read that somewhere or I may have just had a feverdream I don't know. No. There was difference of opinion in the Vietnamese communist movement about how to prosecute the war against the United States. The Viet Cong and other southerners were actually most closely associated with the faction that supported aggressive offensive operations like the Tet Offensive. They declined in influence partly because of the losses incurred by Tet and partly because they lost credibility for having supported it and caused the deaths of so many. The faction that wound up leading Vietnam after the war and that in your theory would have planned the Tet Offensive as a trick to betray the southerners, actually opposed Tet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:That can't be true, just look at the figures. 85k Frenchmen died defending France in 1940, that's already more than there were Vichy troops stationed in any of the French colonies. Even if every Vichy soldier stationed in Morocco and Algeria had fought to their deaths it wouldn't suffice. The Italy factoid sounds about as credible. Even including the French Naval stuff it would seem hard to come close to that....unless somehow bombing raids are figured into it and even then that doesn't seem like it would be enough. Even including these dumbasses wouldn't bring the numbers close. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_French_Volunteers_Against_Bolshevism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33rd_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_Charlemagne_(1st_French) Marshal Prolapse fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:I think it's because the Sea People get brought up in the Ancient history thread essentially every other page (exaggeration, but it comes up fairly often) and people get tired of answering it. I think the best way to answer someone who asks how the Sea Peoples play into the Bronze Age Collapse is asking how they plan on maintaining a marine trade network with regular, widespread coastal invasions flattening your port cities. And it goes on for generations. Trade almost always serves as an underpinning of a broader 'civilization' in the Mediterranean sense. Start snipping those trade links and people stop making money, goods that might have otherwise made a city livable stop being delivered, scholarly materials stop being disseminated. There's way more to it than just that, but it isn't like a failure to maintain trade and communications links across the Med was small taters. E: maybe it was just a bunch of displaced Trojans who later stopped raiding and founded Rome 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:It's a complicated hoop-de-doo which involves shooting them, mining/countermining, and months of working trenches ever-closer to the walls. This lasted right up until the French Revolution, when a garrison commander who surrendered in the old way was executed, along with his wife, for giving in to enemies of the revolution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Not to mention that a siege etiquette developed during the 1600s and 1700s, according to which it wasn't dishonorable to surrender after certain criteria had been met (the first breach was made, the first ram touched the gate, etc) but before the final storm. Saves lives, of course, and resources. By the state or the revolutionaries? It's unclear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
A friend of mine is trying to identify a picture a family member found somewhere. Any goons able to help?: Original with some more details here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Is that a bolt-action rifle, or is that just the strap/angle of the gun causing an illusion?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Is that a bolt-action rifle, or is that just the strap/angle of the gun causing an illusion? I'm 90% sure thats a Springfield 1861 or 1863, so that would be the lock mechanism, not a bolt handle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I think the best way to answer someone who asks how the Sea Peoples play into the Bronze Age Collapse is asking how they plan on maintaining a marine trade network with regular, widespread coastal invasions flattening your port cities. And it goes on for generations. Trade almost always serves as an underpinning of a broader 'civilization' in the Mediterranean sense. Start snipping those trade links and people stop making money, goods that might have otherwise made a city livable stop being delivered, scholarly materials stop being disseminated. There's way more to it than just that, but it isn't like a failure to maintain trade and communications links across the Med was small taters. So, what was the purpose of basically razing a city to the ground? Like, what would their mentality have been? It seems like an unsustainable lifestyle, to me it would make more sense to keep raiding so you never run out of food/riches/whatever instead of utterly destroying the source of your livelihood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So, what was the purpose of basically razing a city to the ground? Like, what would their mentality have been? It seems like an unsustainable lifestyle, to me it would make more sense to keep raiding so you never run out of food/riches/whatever instead of utterly destroying the source of your livelihood. If you don't crush them utterly, eventually your victims are going to recover from whatever weakness they currently have. Meanwhile you'll get fat and decadent and weak off your spoils. One day, they'll build an army big enough, and kick your arse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Not likely, both of those would take generations. Most people doing raiding and looting don't think all that far ahead (which is also why they might completely raze a city).
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:By the state or the revolutionaries? It's unclear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
It's just a speculation but I imagine that if you got displaced from a city by marauding barbarians, you needed to settle down somewhere else real quick, otherwise you were going to miss the next harvest and starve to death. So even if the cities weren't literally torn down in the process of looting, there was little incentive to move back once you adjusted to working a different piece of land? I don't know much about architecture of the region, but I know that clay-based architecture of the Sudan-Sahel style requires virtually constant maintenance and application of new layers, otherwise it quickly falls apart. So it would follow that a mostly abandoned city would then quickly shrink to its new, greatly diminished size even without intentional demolition. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Alternatively, you join those marauding barbarians and snowball all around the Mediterranean with your new pals 'cause you kind of hated your old rulers anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So, what was the purpose of basically razing a city to the ground? Like, what would their mentality have been? It seems like an unsustainable lifestyle, to me it would make more sense to keep raiding so you never run out of food/riches/whatever instead of utterly destroying the source of your livelihood. Flames are pretty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So, what was the purpose of basically razing a city to the ground? Like, what would their mentality have been? It seems like an unsustainable lifestyle, to me it would make more sense to keep raiding so you never run out of food/riches/whatever instead of utterly destroying the source of your livelihood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So, what was the purpose of basically razing a city to the ground? Like, what would their mentality have been? It seems like an unsustainable lifestyle, to me it would make more sense to keep raiding so you never run out of food/riches/whatever instead of utterly destroying the source of your livelihood. To punish your employers ("You haven't payed us in a year and a half? Good luck getting these people to join your side when this is over!"  )Fire's cool I guess Accidents happen As an example to the others
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:As an example to the others
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Not likely, both of those would take generations. Most people doing raiding and looting don't think all that far ahead (which is also why they might completely raze a city). Also why occupy when you can just use your ability to call off the raiding/looting/sacking as leverage to extract tribute or loyalty. Send 100 oxen and 1000 bushels of grain every year and pledge loyalty to me, the king who whooped your asses, or I let general so-and-so loose in the countryside. And he says the troops are feeling extra-rapey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Not to mention that a siege etiquette developed during the 1600s and 1700s, according to which it wasn't dishonorable to surrender after certain criteria had been met (the first breach was made, the first ram touched the gate, etc) but before the final storm. Saves lives, of course, and resources. This practice is hundreds of years older than the 17th century. The earliest codification I can think of is Las Siete Partidas of Alfonso el Sabio, which are from the 13th century, but there are less-formalised examples from earlier. For a practical example, the whole lead-up to the Battle of Bannockburn came about because of negotiated surrender terms for Stirling Castle. Yet again we find Early Moderns taking something from the Middle Ages and pretending they did it first. See also: Reading Vegetius, using math, thrusting with swords. The Harfleur siege as depicted in Shakespeare's Henry V is actually a surprisingly good representation of siege negotiations in Henry's time. Here's the Kenneth Branagh version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgaZ85nZuRA
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:"RIGHT! We're done looting here. Did someone remember to keep one alive to tell others? AGAIN? YOU KILLED THEM ALL AGAIN? I swear guys, if you keep this up I'll just turn this raiding party around and go home." 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:This practice is hundreds of years older than the 17th century. The earliest codification I can think of is Las Siete Partidas of Alfonso el Sabio, which are from the 13th century, but there are less-formalised examples from earlier. For a practical example, the whole lead-up to the Battle of Bannockburn came about because of negotiated surrender terms for Stirling Castle. Yet again we find Early Moderns taking something from the Middle Ages and pretending they did it first. See also: Reading Vegetius, using math, thrusting with swords. I think Hegel's talking about a more formalized 'checklist' after which a commander (not the feudal owner of the fort) could surrender and not face  ing from their own side. E.G. 'stores were at 50%, they shelled us for 8 days, it'd been 8 months and you fucks never sent help, so... yeah we surrendered.' The return of the thus, led to more assaults.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Dammit, I knew I wasn't being as clever as I thought... I love Oglaf.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
 that must be the cleanest Oglaf!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 03:50
|
|