|
Tours was a sideshow, more a giant pillaging raid than an attempt at conquest. On balance, most of Western Europe besides Italy and Spain was probably not worth even invading. This, as always in this period, was where the big news happened.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:31 |
|
|
Someone linked to this in D&D, Russian amateur battlefield excavators: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25589709  Left and center are quite interesting: according to the article, the capped ebony cylinders (left) were ID tags. They had a piece of paper inside (center) that you were supposed to fill out with your information, but many didn't because of the belief that to fill them out would mark you for certain death.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
Does anyone know these books? Are they a good read? http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-2.pdf http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf a travelling HEGEL posted:Tours was a sideshow, more a giant pillaging raid than an attempt at conquest. On balance, most of Western Europe besides Italy and Spain was probably not worth even invading. It is kind of amazing how Tours happened exactly 100 years after the rise of Abu Bakr to power. From small dissidents in southern Arabia to raiding southern France in 100 years, the rise of Islam was an amazing military sucess story. Lamadrid posted:Why the gently caress Greece needs so many tanks ? Are they going to start poo poo in the middle east all on their own Alexander the Great Style?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:"Macedonia? Oh, you mean Southern Serbia!" - every serbian ever 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
I wonder what the ratio of total land occupied by all countries to total land claimed is. It probably changes a lot, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:That's not entirely fair, a lot of procurement projects were set back when people realized that the Russians probably weren't going to attack after all. After all, the Eurofighter was once know as Jäger 90 (after the year it was supposed to enter service). At least we didn't jump on the F-35 bandwagon. There was something in the news recently about Greek Nazis being arrested, so I wouldn't bank on Greece turning into Hitlertopia anytime soon. Also, only a small minority of Greeks hate Germans with a passion, the rest is media overdramatization, as always. On our procurement projects, the trouble is the civil authorities dealing with this poo poo are heavilly clogged with incompetence and corruption. Our last defense minister even gave a hate speech addressing some of the problems at his farewell. With our new lady minister we have now the third defense minister in a row trying to cut back all this rotting red tape. Hopefully she can finally make some progress, or after the reforms are finished we will end up with an army half the size we have now, but still costing the same. (Or more.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
I would happily accept an army half its current size if I got the feeling that we knew what we wanted it for and designed and equipped it accordingly. Right now we have an army that is equipped to fight a conventional maneuver war against attacking UNKNOWN while we use it to do peacekeeping in mountainous countries. Hopefully we can get that discussion going once we're out of Afghanistan. The Eurohawk disaster was just one part of it. The Bundeswehr seems to want to be able to do everything with enough money to do half of it and the necessary expertise to do a third of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Hopefully we can get that discussion going once we're out of Afghanistan. That's hilarious, you should do stand up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:That's hilarious, you should do stand up. Hey we eventually got out of South Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
He's talking about Germany, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Hey we eventually got out of South Vietnam. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Was the battle of Tours really that vital in stopping the Umayyads from advancing further into Europe? It seems like they had overextended themselves and there was some serious instability going on around the Caliphate. Incidentally the BBC has a podcast about that up right now. http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/iot
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Incidentally the BBC has a podcast about that up right now. This is a really interest podcast. Thanks for posting the link!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Incidentally the BBC has a podcast about that up right now. Thanks, that was really interesting and I will probably listen to some more of those podcasts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:He's talking about Germany, I think. Yes, it's about Germany. We're retreating right now out of Afghanistan like the USA out of Vietnam, just a little more orderly and with less people getting shot -for now. We're also promising people who worked for us we will protect them from the revenge-hungry Taliban, but I've grown too cynical to hold my hopes up. The best we can say about this entire adventure is our society has grown even more pacifistic thanks to the way our politicians kept loving this poo poo up. Add a few hundred murdered helpers more and we are only one metaphorical step away from actively dismantling the Bundeswehr. Or the publics' apathy concerning our military grows so strong nothing happens and nothing changes. Ugh. I don't even want to think about that. What would be worse? I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Isn't that all bit hyperbolic really, comparing the running of an ISAF PRT with South Vietnam, and then trying (possibly prematurely) to extrapolate its influence on long-running public sentiment?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Yes, it's about Germany. We're retreating right now out of Afghanistan like the USA out of Vietnam, just a little more orderly and with less people getting shot -for now. We're also promising people who worked for us we will protect them from the revenge-hungry Taliban, but I've grown too cynical to hold my hopes up. I understood that as meaning that we will settle them in Germany if they so wish. Which is the right thing to do. What's curious is that in the beginning, there was actually a surprising amount of support for Germany's engagement in Afghanistan, to the point where I think the politicians underestimated the acceptance of the war. Hell, it took them years to even slightly hint that there might be a war on in Afghanistan. And even then they did it in a incredibly backhanded way ("Many soldiers in Afghanistan would today describe the situation as warlike - I can see where they are coming from (though it is obviously not a war or else I would have said so)"). By that point it was painfully obvious to anyone with a brain that we were a party in a civil war. But that is the Merkel style of government for you. All things considered, (unified) Germany's military record looks a lot worse than stereotypical France's, actually. 1870/71: won WWI: lost WWII: lost Kosovo: won(ish) Afghanistan: lost (probably)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Isn't that all bit hyperbolic really, comparing the running of an ISAF PRT with South Vietnam, and then trying (possibly prematurely) to extrapolate its influence on long-running public sentiment? The Bundeswehr also did some fighting in Afghanistan. Remember that time we called for help and let our allies bomb hundreds of people? The PRT-thing was mostly what our politicians told the media because the typical German would will still flip his poo poo when told we're actively fighting someone. That by the way is the reason our PRT-efforts went mostly nowhere, our governments tried to fight the Taliban and helping the locals whith barely enough effort to do one thing. Also as I said, I don't know what will happen, I've just grown cynical. And those idiots posting on our newssites about how the Bundeswehr is bad because we don't have enough MBTs and heavy artillery to satisfy their fetish aren't helping, too. But maybe it will change for the better, I've heard recently our youth has taken on an interest for the first World War. After generations of getting bored out of history by the thousandth re-telling of the story of evil Hitler and his World War, maybe the sudden interest on other conflicts is a sign of political maturity, who knows? It looks like the time of German navel gazing has come to an end. ArchangeI posted:I understood that as meaning that we will settle them in Germany if they so wish. Which is the right thing to do. The problem is, one part of our political system wants to save them, the other part sees them as dirty foreigners who should stay where they are. If we're lucky, the good guys win and lots of Afghans are saved. If the other side wins, lots of Afghans will be denied residence and send back/stay where they are. Then the slaughtering begins. (There already have been several revenge-related deaths and we're still there right now.) Libluini fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Isn't that all bit hyperbolic really, comparing the running of an ISAF PRT with South Vietnam, and then trying (possibly prematurely) to extrapolate its influence on long-running public sentiment? Are you talking to me or the German guy? Because my south Vietnam reference was about what's going to happen when the US pulls out. E: d'oh you're talking to the German guy I skipped over his 1st paragraph. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Also as I said, I don't know what will happen, I've just grown cynical. And those idiots posting on our newssites about how the Bundeswehr is bad because we don't have enough MBTs and heavy artillery to satisfy their fetish aren't helping, too. Should have ditched the Bundeswehr and kept the NVA!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 18:48
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Someone linked to this in D&D, Russian amateur battlefield excavators: This article is sad but incredibly touching to read. gently caress those awful people looting the remains though.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:This article is sad but incredibly touching to read. gently caress those awful people looting the remains though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 18:56
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:The people in the article aren't the "black excavators" though, they're cool. Yeah I know that, though out of context insulting the black excavators would sound pretty bad.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:The people in the article aren't the "black excavators" though, they're cool. Russian black excavators don't loot the ID cylinders, and occasionally even notify the proper channels of the bodies that they find. Taking the medals and guns is pretty lovely, but they're not complete monsters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
The fight between white excavators and black excavators sounds like Night Watch though, and a whole lot more like wizard combat than I'm sure it actually is.Ensign Expendable posted:Russian black excavators don't loot the ID cylinders, and occasionally even notify the proper channels of the bodies that they find. Incidentally, I'm up early because I was just Skyping with a documentary filmmaker about battlefield trauma in the early modern period. He's planning a documentary on shell shock (anniversary of World War 1, get ready for lots more of this  ) and wanted some background. My stuff will go in his funding pitch, and if that comes off, it may go in the film!
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
I just think grave robbing dead soldiers especially in the modern day for eBay is a pretty lovely thing to do. And congratulations on the documentary stuff HEGEL!
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:And congratulations on the documentary stuff HEGEL! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Thanks alot for the podcast, somewhat unrelated i figure, but how was the link of heavy Frankish cavalry was the result of the battle of Tours? Arab sources seldom mention military equipment, also in much of the initial conquests period they needed high mobility, and armored cavalry such as these were pretty much a phenomena only found in Sassanid Persia (the Byzantines had abandoned cataphracts up until the 9th century), plus expensive, especially when you take into account much of the Arab conquests were essentially booty raids and trying to divert internal squabbles into an external thing. Also something interesting to look into, but i remember as a kid our school history books mentioned the battle as Balat al Shuhada' (Field of Martyrs, or Martyrs Ground), the book said the battle was fought in a valley and Martels forces managed to botteneck the Muslims there causing them defeat, i'm curious about the terrain Tours took place in, sounds perfectly plausible for a phalanx.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
The Arabian (which is a somewhat inaccurate term for them really) forces never saw Tours as a big thing or anything, it mostly was light cavalry specialized in raiding. The French mostly was heavy infantry, presumably in formation. The Frankish cavalry was mostly hyping something that didn't happen that much because it fit the chivalric values of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Davincie posted:The Arabian (which is a somewhat inaccurate term for them really) forces never saw Tours as a big thing or anything, it mostly was light cavalry specialized in raiding. The French mostly was heavy infantry, presumably in formation. The Frankish cavalry was mostly hyping something that didn't happen that much because it fit the chivalric values of the time. Chivalry did not exist in the 8th, 9th, or 10th centuries. Many historians argue it did not even exist in the 11th, though I take the view that it did in a nascent form by the reign of William Rufus at the latest. I really do not know enough about the battle of Tours to comment on it, but this answer is nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Chivalry did not exist in the 8th, 9th, or 10th centuries. Many historians argue it did not even exist in the 11th, though I take the view that it did in a nascent form by the reign of William Rufus at the latest. You misread what he said. He meant that the promotion of Frankish cavalry as being decisive at Tours was an anachronism beloved by scholars during later chivalric times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:None of this may pan out, but on the chance that it does I'm all Am I a bad person for pointing out the lack of effort-post about it? Just kidding. Thanks everybody in the thread for so many interesting posts!
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
mastervj posted:Am I a bad person for pointing out the lack of effort-post about it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Y'all aren't getting anything that might identify me in the thread, but if the documentary does get made you can PM me about it. I was just hoping for some awesome stuff about "battlefield trauma in the early modern period". 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:Thanks alot for the podcast, somewhat unrelated i figure, but how was the link of heavy Frankish cavalry was the result of the battle of Tours? Arab sources seldom mention military equipment, also in much of the initial conquests period they needed high mobility, and armored cavalry such as these were pretty much a phenomena only found in Sassanid Persia (the Byzantines had abandoned cataphracts up until the 9th century), plus expensive, especially when you take into account much of the Arab conquests were essentially booty raids and trying to divert internal squabbles into an external thing. I've read later Carolingian armies were centered around a core of mounted infantry, i.e. men that rode to battle but fought on foot. The author Bernard S. Bachrach in his book Early Carolingian Warfare describes the phalanx as the primary formation of the Carolingian army, and quotes a source which says the Franks line stood like a "wall of ice" at the battle of Tours, although I don't have the book now and can't check his sources. FIghting as a phalanx would make sense for the Merovingians and Carolingians, who had a lot of continuity with late Roman tactics and strategy, although besides that they dismounted for combat I haven't read anything detailed on their tactics or equipment. Might be better to ask this in the medieval warfare thread, but anyone know how Carolingian armies were levied and organized? Squalid fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
I've been reading the wiki pages on war crimes in the Vietnam War and it seems that South Korean forces were responsible for the good majority of massacres on the US side. Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I've been reading the wiki pages on war crimes in the Vietnam War and it seems that South Korean forces were responsible for the good majority of massacres on the US side. Why is that? I would guess being part of an anticommunist regime, being commanded by (intensly anticommunist) veterans of the Korean War, and the usual bit of racism that seem to permeate Asia (not that race didn't play a role in American warfare in Vietnam).
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
They'd had a lot of practice during the First Republic. Plausible deniability too
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:31 |
|
|
mastervj posted:I was just hoping for some awesome stuff about "battlefield trauma in the early modern period". OK! There seems to have been a recognition in the period that battle could make you go crazy, or was associated with mental problems. Soldiers in the first rush of sacking a city were often described as "furious," for instance, as in "frenzied and impossible to restrain." Meanwhile, you get glimpses in the literature of people dealing with mental trauma which we would call PTSD; for instance, Niccolo Tartaglia, first Italian to translate Euclid into the vernacular, was hurt in the sack of Brescia in 1512, when he was 12 years old. A French soldier cut him quite badly several times about the head and face, and when he healed he had to be taught how to speak again. (This is where his last name comes from--it means "stammerer" and was the nickname the other children gave him.) Was this because of his injuries, or was he rendered mute through mental stress? In Corvisier's big book, I also found a letter from around 1750 from the Intendant Jean-Immanuel Guignard de Saint-Priest to a military hospital, telling them that they should admit a man named Pierre Ducleaux, who had become insane after being wounded in the leg. Since this was the mid 1700s and Saint-Priest was French, you get nice things like "His condition has not removed his citizenship from him," and the statement that people like Ducleaux "have acquired the right to be treated for the rest of their lives as retired soldiers, since they have served long enough, and since their ailments can truly be attributed to fatigues of service or wounds which they have received." So there seems to be a sense that you can go insane from military-related things, and later the sense (bolstered by the humanitarian feelings of the Enlightenment) that society owes these people. (Although it was necessary for the French authorities to insist that people with mental problems be placed in military hospitals, and this insistence was often in vain.) But the discussion is not framed in terms of trauma, it centers on "nostalgia." Johannes Hofer, a Swiss doctor, wrote Dissertatio Medica De Nostalgia Oder Heimweh in 1688, describing what the Swiss were already calling "Heimweh." It's a severe dejection caused by leaving your home, it's physical (the imagination causes brain lesions), and although soldiers are not the only victims it is quite common among the Swiss in foreign service. Discussions of nostalgia begin around the mid 1700s (all of Corvisier's examples are from after 1763) and really pick up among the French during the Revolutionary Wars/Napoleonic Wars, which makes sense since they are mobilizing on an unprecedented scale. Symptoms include:
Treatment includes sending the guy home and making sure your people can send and receive mail regularly. Literature from the 1790s is harsher on these guys than that from the mid 1700s. Is it exactly the same as what we would call PTSD? I don't know. The symptoms overlap, but the etiology is different. It's possible that everyone goes crazy in the way that their culture tells them they will; Americans don't get the penis-falling-off delusion. There are lots of images in art of battle, but very few of battle's effect on the mind. I emailed the guy Urs Graf's Battle of Marignano picture as one example (which is quite rare, incidentally, for being a negative commentary on war in the early 1500s, a period the art of which is usually neutral or celebratory on the subject); this is another one.  Known as "Mars And Venus and the Horrors of War," artist unknown, first half of the 17th century. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 04:40
|
|