|
Anyone have any insight to what the boot camp process was for the Roman Legion? They must have had something like that but are there any records or accounts?
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
Was/is there ever any plans to use the Chunnel in a military context? Too late for the Cold War, but I imagine that using it to ferry troops across to the Continent would be faster than a ship up to a certain size (no idea on train/track compatibility), and apparently Lloyd-George was entertaining similar thoughts way back in 1919.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Not sure which history thread to post this in but this one seems about right. Can someone tell me about Bohemia? I know so little so any sort of insight would be good. I know they were a major player in the early\mid HRE, then they kinda got Austriaed and now its the Czech Republic. I also know some important guy during Germany's modern\pre-modern era wars basically owned it all and used it to fund his personal army. Anyone knowledgeable at all?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Novum posted:Anyone have any insight to what the boot camp process was for the Roman Legion? They must have had something like that but are there any records or accounts? I can't follow this link at work, but: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1d3kk0/‎ - seems to be your exact question. Also: quote:Tirones (Latin: tiro, tironis) were new recruits in the armies of the Roman Empire. A tiro could take up to six months before becoming a full miles (infantryman/private) quote:"Of aspirants for enlistment were required good eyes and sound and vigorous bodies; but no definite height, certain units excepted, seems to have been prescribed... After taking the oath (sacramentum), the recruits entered upon an intensive and apparently endless course of training. The success of Roman arms, like all others, came from drill, discipline and training." quote:De Re Militari (Latin "Concerning Military Matters"), also Epitoma Rei Militaris, is a treatise by the late Latin writer Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus about Roman warfare and military principles as a presentation of methods and practices in use during the height of Rome's power, and responsible for that power. The extant text dates to the 5th century.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Was/is there ever any plans to use the Chunnel in a military context? Too late for the Cold War, but I imagine that using it to ferry troops across to the Continent would be faster than a ship up to a certain size (no idea on train/track compatibility), and apparently Lloyd-George was entertaining similar thoughts way back in 1919. Its only like 150 feet down right? If there were plans for it I can't imagine that Soviets didn't have at least one thing capable of chucking explosives assigned to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
EVERY MORNING I WAKE UP AND OPEN PALM SLAM AN IDEA INTO MY BRAIN. IT'S OUR CULTURE'S OVERCOMPENSATING OBSESSION WITH THE CLASSICS COUPLED WITH A REALLY UNHEALTHY VIEW OF MY OWN CAPACITIES AND RIGHT THEN AND THERE I START DOING THE MOVES ALONGSIDE WITH THE MAIN CHARACTER, MARS THE GOD OF WAR. I DO EVERY MOVE AND I DO EVERY MOVE HARD. MAKIN WHOOSHING SOUNDS WHEN I SLAM DOWN SOME CASH OR EVEN WHEN I MESS UP A PLAN. NOT MANY CAN SAY THE EMPEROR OWES THEM. I CAN. I SAY IT AND I SAY IT OUTLOUD EVERYDAY TO PEOPLE AT COURT AND ALL THEY DO IS PROVE PEOPLE AT COURT CAN STILL BE IMMATURE JEKRS. AND IVE LEARNED ALL THE LINES AND IVE LEARNED HOW TO MAKE MYSELF AND MY ESTATE LESS LONELY BY SHOUTING EM ALL. 2 HOURS INCLUDING WIND DOWN EVERY MORNIng then i lift An interesting dude died yesterday. Cast_No_Shadow, this is the guy you were wondering about. Bohemia was a constituent state of the Hapsburg monarchy and in that sense connected to the HRE. It was rich, important, and multi-confessional--which is why Emperor Ferdinand II's religious intransigence helped kick off the Thirty Years' War. I don't know if Wallenstein "owned most of it," but he was the largest landowner in Bohemia at the height of his power and a major creditor to the Empire. That plus royal privileges (he didn't have to pay taxes on his duchy, it was protected from quartering, etc) made him extremely wealthy and capable of waging war by drawing on his own resources. (He was an ethnic Bohemian, by the way, and spoke both Czech and German as a child. His Czech was better when he was young, but no writings by him in Czech survive.) For actual information on Bohemia, you should ask steinrokkan, who comes from there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:Not sure which history thread to post this in but this one seems about right. That "Important Guy" was Albrecht z Valdštejna, Albrecht von Wallenstein who in exchange for helping the Habsburgs during the outbreak of the 30 Year War was given the Duchy of Friedland, which became basically a huge factory for procuring military supplies, and was named the generalissimo of Imperial armies. Anyway, I'd be happy to answer any questions, but they would have to be somewhat specific. The basic outline of Bohemian history until about 1618 would look like this: Started as part of the Great Moravian Empire, accepted western Christianity. From the 9th century on existed as a Principality ruled by a native dynasty, the Přemyslids. There remains some confusion over the chronology of important events in this period, but the basic narrative goes like this: Bohemia was a vassal of the young Empire, and forced to pay tribute. In early 10th century Prince Václav (Wenceslav) was accused of being a weakling by his brother Boleslav, and was eventually assassinated (and later canonized as Patron Saint of the country). Boleslav supposedly declared war against the Empire, and after years of struggle hesitantly resumed the tribute, only to later become a major ally of the Emperor in subduing the rising Hungarian threat. What is more important and more certain is that he and his son, Boleslav II, led the state to its first golden age, eliminating political rivals from other dynasties, extending the territory to modern Ukraine, issuing first coins etc. The Přemyslids managed to gain hereditary title of King of Bohemia in 1212, granted through the Golden Bull of Sicily. That made Bohemia an important player since AFAIK there were no other kingdoms within the Empire, and because it stripped the Emperor of any right to appoint rulers in Bohemia, and made the Bohemian King the first Elector. The Přemylids reached peak with Václav II and Václav III who combined Bohemia, Poland and Hungary into a personal union of three kingdoms, but Václav III was assassinated without a heir, and a civil war broke out. Ultimately the Luxembourgs managed to get hold of the throne and made Prague the seat of the Emperor. Charles IV (1346-1378) also presented a Bull which made the lands of the Bohemian Crown indivisible, and thus cemented their position as one of political centres of the German world. Charles IV was followed by Václav IV, a weak ruler who failed to even collect his Imperial crown, and during whose rule the burgeoning movement of utraquists, led by Jan Hus until his execution in 1415, culminated in the Hussite wars aka the one bit of Bohemian history that is somewhat well-known abroad. I won't get into that period because it was a goddamn clusterfuck. The Hussite wars left the kingdom weakened and ruled by a succession of moderate Utraquists (sometimes their confession is interpreted as Protestant, but that is not true - Protestants and utraquists would later become enemies) who won certain religious concessions granted by the Church. In these years the estates of the kingdom leveraged a great deal of power over the throne, something which would become a major source of conflict with the next rulers of Bohemia... the Habsburgs. The Habburgs made a bid for the throne in the 16th century, represented by Ferdinand I who was elected on a "I'll pay you lots of money" platform. The Habsburg period is another huge clusterfuck of the Bohemian nobles and cities trying to gently caress each other over, and in the spare time trying to conspire against the Habsburgs, who were themselves working on moving the effective seat of the royal power from Prague to Vienna. Nevertheless, the powers granted to Bohemia over the past few centuries made it difficult to beat into submission - until the Thrity Year War that is. The Thirty Year War which started over disputed legality of the destruction of two churches in small Bohemian towns, and ended as a major factor in shaping European politics of the entire modern era.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
And there we go. Cheers, bro.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The Thirty Year War which started over disputed legality of the destruction of two churches in small Bohemian towns, and ended as a major factor in shaping European politics of the entire modern era. While technically correct, isn't that like saying the American Civil War started over the shelling of Fort Sumter? I'm under the impression that the religious conflict was already causing unrest across Europe and the Bohemian Revolt happened to be the event that drew a lot of powers into war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:While technically correct, isn't that like saying the American Civil War started over the shelling of Fort Sumter? I'm under the impression that the religious conflict was already causing unrest across Europe and the Bohemian Revolt happened to be the event that drew a lot of powers into war. The word 'sparked' comes to mind. The powder keg was already there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:While technically correct, isn't that like saying the American Civil War started over the shelling of Fort Sumter? I'm under the impression that the religious conflict was already causing unrest across Europe and the Bohemian Revolt happened to be the event that drew a lot of powers into war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:While technically correct, isn't that like saying the American Civil War started over the shelling of Fort Sumter? I'm under the impression that the religious conflict was already causing unrest across Europe and the Bohemian Revolt happened to be the event that drew a lot of powers into war. Sure, but it sounds better this way, and gives it a nice nationalist tone. Basically everybody in Europe held grudges against any number of competing nations, and the Revolt mobilized - both deliberately and unwittingly - a plethora of political forces ranging from Savoy, to the Palatinate, to Transylvania, to Turkey. Furthermore plenty of nobles went into exile and lobbied hard for war in their new homes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Wasn't the climate change one of the reasons?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Wasn't the climate change one of the reasons?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Have you got the original rules in ye olde Dutch lying around? I will, in a few weeks. I also ordered a somewhat rare book about criminal punishments in 17th century New York, that should give me a better idea of what was the norm at the time. Based on everything I can tell though, Cornelis Evertsen invaded New York out of personal Vendetta against the Duke of York, and did so entirely without authorization from the Dutch government, who were really upset with him. It also seems that his rules are absurdly harsh out of vengeance, as in the first edict I posted. Within 24 hours all people not swearing allegiance to the Dutch invaders must vacate the city and anyone failing to report such people fined 600 guilders (an absolutely insanely huge amount of money that almost nobody in the city could afford). I'll be working in the NY State archives full time in March so hopefully I will have free access to everything, but a lot of it is still in the form of the original Dutch documents, and though I've taken courses on 17th century Dutch and 17th century Dutch paleography at Columbia and the Amsterdam city archives, reading old Dutch is an insane pain in the rear end. I was looking through the seized records of a ship in Angola, and the Portuguese parts were clearly legible, but the Dutch all looks like this: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
twoday posted:... though I've taken courses on 17th century Dutch and 17th century Dutch paleography at Columbia and the Amsterdam city archives, reading old Dutch is an insane pain in the rear end. I was looking through the seized records of a ship in Angola, and the Portuguese parts were clearly legible, but the Dutch all looks like this: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Don't believe him! I have been learning it from people who have been doing it for decades and they still have troubles. Just to test myself, is that Swedish?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Just have a pharmacist read it for ya.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
twoday posted:Don't believe him! I have been learning it from people who have been doing it for decades and they still have troubles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Ah yes, I see a "Von" and a "genomen" Oh, and if anyone has any questions about the military history of New Amsterdam/New Netherland or 17th century Dutch colonialism in general, please feel free to ask. I may have some questions of my own about certain details, but I'm generally knowledgeable on the topic. twoday fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
I remember reading on these forums a long rear end time ago and maybe in this thread's forerunner, the GBS history thread or maybe even an LF mil-hist effort thread that the labyrinthine side streets and alleyways of Paris in the Revolution were conducive to the uprising. I think the reasoning suggested was that thanks to the flighty local belligerents, the topography was great at breaking up troop units into smaller and smaller and more diffuse elements that lost their advantages of massed musket volleys and led to their loss of cohesion and chaotic defeat in detail. There was an implied addendum that the transition to broad avenues of post-revolutionary Paris was to counteract a repeat performance of just such an uprising. I've learned enough from these threads and others that what you've heard and read doesn't necessarily imply historicity and I'm just kinda wondering about how stupid/ how insightful/ or how incidental this hypothetical mattered to the course of history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
twoday posted:Oh, and if anyone has any questions about the military history of New Amsterdam/New Netherland or 17th century Dutch colonialism in general, please feel free to ask. I may have some questions of my own about certain details, but I'm generally knowledgeable on the topic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
I will Dreadnought all over you if you try that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I will Dreadnought all over you if you try that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:It beats the incessant thrum of tankchat, constant as the autumn rains. But really, how would the war have changed if the Americans had upgunned the Sherman with laser cannons?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:It beats the incessant thrum of tankchat, constant as the autumn rains. Or swordchat, pikechat, bowchat, etc. I should really finish Tooze since I'm pretty well equipped to get into more serious issues, like industrial base and finance, ~as a bit-part economic historian~ Koesj fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
Tooze is exceptionally good.cafel posted:But really, how would the war have changed if the Americans had upgunned the Sherman with laser cannons? General Patton would've died of ecstasy before he could command the Third Army. This would've been a huge blow to the Allies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
cafel posted:But really, how would the war have changed if the Americans had upgunned the Sherman with laser cannons? The only thing left of Berlin would be a patch of scorched earth in the shape of a burning skull.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
Enthusiastic troops soon discover that this actually means all of their tanks have been replaced with CDLs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_Defence_Light
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I will Dreadnought all over you if you try that. I would like to be Dreadnoughted all over. Especially since someone I was discussing interwar shipbuilding with said that His Majesty's Navy fell behind in all-gun ship quality because everyone else circumvented Washington. e: thought i was missing words from a ninja edit but didn't Sidesaddle Cavalry fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:I remember reading on these forums a long rear end time ago and maybe in this thread's forerunner, the GBS history thread or maybe even an LF mil-hist effort thread that the labyrinthine side streets and alleyways of Paris in the Revolution were conducive to the uprising. I think the reasoning suggested was that thanks to the flighty local belligerents, the topography was great at breaking up troop units into smaller and smaller and more diffuse elements that lost their advantages of massed musket volleys and led to their loss of cohesion and chaotic defeat in detail. There was an implied addendum that the transition to broad avenues of post-revolutionary Paris was to counteract a repeat performance of just such an uprising. I've learned enough from these threads and others that what you've heard and read doesn't necessarily imply historicity and I'm just kinda wondering about how stupid/ how insightful/ or how incidental this hypothetical mattered to the course of history. I'm not well-educated on the subject, but the guy who handled the redesign was one Haussmann; books on him may be a good place to look. Wkipedia has a coupleparagraphs about the military consequences of the renovations, but you know how Wikipedia is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:I would like to be Dreadnoughted all over. Especially since someone I was discussing interwar shipbuilding with said that His Majesty's Navy fell behind in all-gun ship quality because everyone else circumvented Washington. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battleship_building_scatter_graph_1905_onwards.png Of the three nations that built heavier battleships than Britain did, one was an ally and only circumvented Washington Treaty limits after the onset of war (USA), one was never party to the treaty limits and still lost to the Royal Navy (Germany) and the only one that violated naval treaty terms prior to the outbreak of war never faced down the RN in a traditional gun-duel (Japan).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:It beats the incessant thrum of tankchat, constant as the autumn rains. Tankchat owns, hth. cafel posted:But really, how would the war have changed if the Americans had upgunned the Sherman with laser cannons? Laser cannons have poor anti-infantry and anti-fortification performance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
cafel posted:But really, how would the war have changed if the Americans had upgunned the Sherman with laser cannons? What if Wallenstein had laser cannons?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battleship_building_scatter_graph_1905_onwards.png  but what if the british, much like how the japanese wanted later on vs. the americans, had managed to get the japanese into a 'decisive battle' gun-duel like they originally planned for against the japanese before the war? what would a theorhetical face-off between the  I'm honestly just looking for a comparison of gun and armor performance here, in a vacuum as they may have been. What if ships had laser c--oh wait.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
cafel posted:But really, how would the war have changed if the Americans had upgunned the Sherman with laser cannons? I didn't read a "the" and thought "Well he would have burned Atlanta to the ground a bit easier".
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Or swordchat, pikechat, bowchat, etc. Swordchat rules and I will cut a swath thorough your nation of lanky albinos to prove it. Hey twoday how did the Dutch establish themselves in the Americas? Did they have to wage war on the natives?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battleship_building_scatter_graph_1905_onwards.png That chart's throwing me off a bit. Is each dot supposed to represent individual ships, or different classes of ship? Since otherwise the US would be missing about a half-dozen battleships on that chart, due to all the SoDak's and Iowa's we built. With regard to the treaty proper, though, it is funny how the US began breaking the treaty almost immediately after they signed it. Both the Lexington and Saratoga were several thousand tons over the treaty limit for converted aircraft carriers, and by the late '30s the US had broken the overall tonnage limit as well. (Though of course by that point everyone else was breaking the treaty as well). Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:
Don't even start about ships in vacuums with laser cannons, or we'll be going dark places. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
We'd just turn a raised Hood into a Library or something. Show offs.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
The firing arc blind spots at the bottom... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 17:07
|
|