|
I'm working on some ideas for a cold war grand strategy game and would be interested in maps. Is there like a version of google earth set to 1987? (specifically I'm finding it difficult to figure out where the East-West German border is supposed to be).
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm working on some ideas for a cold war grand strategy game and would be interested in maps. Is there like a version of google earth set to 1987? (specifically I'm finding it difficult to figure out where the East-West German border is supposed to be). The inner-German border is fairly easy to find, since the new Bundesländer were formed from the DDR. So you just have to get a good map showing the Bundesländer and follow the Western border of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg, Thüringen, Sachsen and Sachsen-Anhalt. Googlemaps has that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm working on some ideas for a cold war grand strategy game and would be interested in maps. Is there like a version of google earth set to 1987? (specifically I'm finding it difficult to figure out where the East-West German border is supposed to be). http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Rand-McNally-Concise-World-Atlas-1987-Hardcover-/2070413
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm working on some ideas for a cold war grand strategy game and would be interested in maps. Is there like a version of google earth set to 1987? (specifically I'm finding it difficult to figure out where the East-West German border is supposed to be). ArchangeI posted:The inner-German border is fairly easy to find, since the new Bundesländer were formed from the DDR. So you just have to get a good map showing the Bundesländer and follow the Western border of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg, Thüringen, Sachsen and Sachsen-Anhalt. Googlemaps has that. Niedersachsen got a sliver of M-V on the other side of the Elbe though. Between Lauenburg and Wittenberge the river itself used to be the IGB, and the former 1 (NL) Korps defensive sector to boot  e: WoodrowSkillson posted:http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Rand-McNally-Concise-World-Atlas-1987-Hardcover-/2070413 Nahhhh go with a local Falk Plan or something, gently caress, there might even be something like watwaswaar.nl for Germany. Koesj fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:That name's vaguely familiar. Did he ever TA at UC Santa Cruz? If he's the guy that I met he's pretty on-the-ball.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Niedersachsen got a sliver of M-V on the other side of the Elbe though. Between Lauenburg and Wittenberge the river itself used to be the IGB, and the former 1 (NL) Korps defensive sector to boot I know. We in Mecklenburg don't talk about them. drat traitors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Any recommendations for a book covering Poland before the Congress of Vienna? Just looking for an overview--doesn't need to be military history specific.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:This one went to Cambridge, so probably not. So are you mercenary enough to, say, break all their typing fingers so I can have a marginally better shot at getting into a cool hip European institution?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
the JJ posted:So are you mercenary enough to, say, break all their typing fingers so I can have a marginally better shot at getting into a cool hip European institution? Do your own drat homework.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Any recommendations for a book covering Poland before the Congress of Vienna? Just looking for an overview--doesn't need to be military history specific. Do you mean "everything that happened before the Congress" or just the Duchy of Warsaw (1807-1815) period? In the former case I'd probably recommend God's Playground, that should be the only accessible enough general Polish history that was published in English (at least as far as I know).
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
the JJ posted:So are you mercenary enough to, say, break all their typing fingers so I can have a marginally better shot at getting into a cool hip European institution?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:He does HEMA so a hit would probably be difficult, which means let's turn the page to the discussion of different rates... Early modern focus and you didn't even factor in the gunpowder element. Pretty shameful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Early modern focus and you didn't even factor in the gunpowder element. Pretty shameful. a shameful HEGEL
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:a shameful HEGEL Maybe she was thinking of charging artillery rates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Maybe she was thinking of charging artillery rates.  Edit: I'm still a shameful HEGEL, though, for a number of reasons
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
Love the idea of landsknecht haggling with their paymasters over doing things on the battlefield. Asking them to going into a bloody heavily defended breach in the wall must have taken forever.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
How did you hire mercenaries back then? Did they advertise?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Love the idea of landsknecht haggling with their paymasters over doing things on the battlefield. Asking them to going into a bloody heavily defended breach in the wall must have taken forever. And God for loving bid you hire Landsknechts and Swiss at the same time. Then if anything goes wrong they blame each other--at the siege of Milan during the Italian Wars, both Germans and Swiss were in Imperial service, the Swiss apparently screwed up, and the German soldiers (the article I looked this up in said "Knechte," so not their officers, who were probably appalled) ended up executing five Swiss Hauptleute. Otherwise they would have walked out. Fangz posted:How did you hire mercenaries back then? Did they advertise? HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 12:21
|
|
|
Fangz posted:How did you hire mercenaries back then? Did they advertise? I'm a imagining a ye olde Soldier of Fortune magazine with lots of woodcuts advertising pikes and codpieces and big feathered hats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
Azipod posted:I'm a imagining a ye olde Soldier of Fortune magazine with lots of woodcuts advertising pikes and codpieces and big feathered hats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
Fangz posted:How did you hire mercenaries back then? Did they advertise? Most mercenaries just headed for the direction of where they knew a war was on (and wars were always on in Early Modern Europe). It was actually a huge problem because you kept having these bands of armed soldiers running across Europe without anyone keeping them in check. If you wanted to raise mercenaries you just sent a couple people around the taverns to spread the news. It might backfire though. I know of one instance where someone planned to raise about 3.000 Landsknechte, only to have 6.000 show up on the mustering grounds. Question: what do you do with the ones you don't hire, who are now a) armed, b) together and c) pissed off at you? You use the 3.000 you hired to fight the 3.000 you didn't
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Question: what do you do with the ones you don't hire, who are now a) armed, b) together and c) pissed off at you? Death match for contract in the first place is the correct answer. The winners are obviously better candidates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Fangz posted:How did you hire mercenaries back then? Did they advertise? You hire the guys who fought for the guy you just beat. The Hagendorf guy I mentioned switched sides whenever he lost a battle. Also the foragers for the army often hired men they ran into.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Pfft, why would you hire losers you just beat? The real winning strategy is paying more to the guys that are currently beating you 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Pfft, why would you hire losers you just beat? The real winning strategy is paying more to the guys that are currently beating you Sometimes you'd hire guys and send them off, not caring if they win or lose, since you just wanted all those unemployed soldiers out of your country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Davincie posted:You hire the guys who fought for the guy you just beat. The Hagendorf guy I mentioned switched sides whenever he lost a battle. Also the foragers for the army often hired men they ran into. Another fun 30YW thing is that if one army is camped in a bad location and they don't have enough food, but they know their enemies are in a better situation, they'll desert from their employers in order to join their enemy. Sometimes in huge numbers. The 17th century word for deserting is "ausreißen," something like "travelling away." The implication is not, like in the 18th century word for desertion, "Fahnenflucht" (fleeing the standard), that the deserter is rejecting the military as such, simply that he (or she, which happened) is leaving this particular military. I found one dude who gave his name in a roll as Christoph Reißaus--he could have chosen the last name himself, indicating his willingness to walk off if not treated well. And that was in 1681! HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
To be honest that's probably feature of any conflict taking place in a rural subsistence economy, including the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:To be honest that's probably feature of any conflict taking place in a rural subsistence economy, including the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:Would ideology make a difference, do you think? Otherwise, I could definitely see that happening in early 20th century Russia or China or something. It definitely happened in both scenarios you mentioned (in China distressingly frequntly all the way until 1950s) - in more recent years it became the foundation for reconciliation processes in Africa, Cambodia etc. Basically pre-modern societies can't afford the lasting political cleavages expected from ideology-oriented elites.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It definitely happened in both scenarios you mentioned (in China distressingly frequntly all the way until 1950s) - in more recent years it became the foundation for reconciliation processes in Africa, Cambodia etc. Basically pre-modern societies can't afford the lasting political cleavages expected from ideology-oriented elites.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Confederate troops were always deserting to go back home to plant and harvest. When most of the people you can put into a fight are the people who grow the food, you're not in a good place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:Would ideology make a difference, do you think? Otherwise, I could definitely see that happening in early 20th century Russia or China or something. Isn't that essentially what happened during the Chinese Civil War? Unpaid, underfed but well armed (thanks to American aid) Nationalist troops went over to the Commies in huge amounts. Not necessarily because they were true believers, but because the Reds would feed them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
sullat posted:Isn't that essentially what happened during the Chinese Civil War? Unpaid, underfed but well armed (thanks to American aid) Nationalist troops went over to the Commies in huge amounts. Not necessarily because they were true believers, but because the Reds would feed them. Lots of generals were used to literally decades of switching sides. Some of Chiang's men started fighting against each other as commanders in the many Beijing era cliques, others were petty warlords, others still fought against KMT during the Northern Expedition only to join the party few months later. It didn't help that most of them came from a handful of common backgrounds (Tokyo / the Beiyang army / the Soviet Union) and relied on their friends scattered throughout China to keep lobbying for them. When the Civil War broke out, it presented people with another opportunity to switch sides, and in the increasing chaos of the second Sino-Japanese war commanders could switch to the pro-Japanese government, then to the KMT, then to the Communists, and then to the KMT again without ever being reprimanded. Even if a general got killed in the middle of all this, his men were guaranteed to be cordially embraced - as long as they were willing to join fighting on their new masters' side. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
In the musical "Les Miserables" there is a reference to M. Thenardier "picking through the pockets of the English dead" after the Battle of Waterloo. I can imagine that, for much of history, the leavings of battles were a source of major income for those with enough stomach to wander through the pink mist... but I would have figured that by the beginning of the 19th century, there would be means in place for the removal of corpses from the battlefield, especially by the victor. As the English, being part of the Seventh Coalition, were among the victors, I am surprised that they would just leave their dead on the field with full pockets like that. Is that just some poetic licence? Was Thenardier supposed to be wandering around an active battlefield, stealing? How did most eras in history approach war dead? I saw talk earlier in the thread about ancient societies collecting practically all of their dead and keeping accurate count of their losses. How does that translate into later wars? It seems like it would be difficult, if not impossible, to pull all your fallen out of the barbed wire in no-man's land, even if there's no machine gun nests actively covering the area.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Brawnfire posted:As the English, being part of the Seventh Coalition, were among the victors, I am surprised that they would just leave their dead on the field with full pockets like that. Is that just some poetic licence? Was Thenardier supposed to be wandering around an active battlefield, stealing? The deal with Waterloo was that everyone was so wrecked tired afterwards they mostly just went off to rest and dealt with the battlefield itself the next day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Brawnfire posted:How did most eras in history approach war dead? I saw talk earlier in the thread about ancient societies collecting practically all of their dead and keeping accurate count of their losses. How does that translate into later wars? It seems like it would be difficult, if not impossible, to pull all your fallen out of the barbed wire in no-man's land, even if there's no machine gun nests actively covering the area. The Tombs of the Unknown Soldier were made after WWI because it was really the first war where a) people cared about the identity of fallen soldiers and b) there were fallen soldiers in large numbers which couldn't be identified. Not least because, yes, an attack went out and got cut to ribbons, the survivors straggle back to the own lines. Anyone who is missing is either dead or a prisoner. The dead are left where they fell because its no use sending living men after the dead. Two years pass, in which the corpses are repeatedly blown up and new corpses added to it the pile. How on earth is a burial detail going through afterwards to know who the remains belong to? And that is before things like regimental records being inaccurate so men just vanished - assigned to a unit, killed before they could be added to the rolls. That said, temporary ceasefires to clear the field of the dead and/or wounded did happen at times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
"At times" is something of an understatement. A lot of recent examination of the war is showing just how often truces were in effect, and how even though both sides were still shooting at each other to appease HQ, they were deliberately missing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 21:47
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Brawnfire posted:In the musical "Les Miserables" there is a reference to M. Thenardier "picking through the pockets of the English dead" after the Battle of Waterloo. I can imagine that, for much of history, the leavings of battles were a source of major income for those with enough stomach to wander through the pink mist... but I would have figured that by the beginning of the 19th century, there would be means in place for the removal of corpses from the battlefield, especially by the victor. As the English, being part of the Seventh Coalition, were among the victors, I am surprised that they would just leave their dead on the field with full pockets like that. Is that just some poetic licence? Was Thenardier supposed to be wandering around an active battlefield, stealing? Your imagination is correct, but it's not "leavings," it's "booty," and the distinction is important because there's a body of legal theory behind it. Until into the 19th century, the collection of booty from the conquered dead was a legal right of the victors, since battle was legally equivalent to a trial and the right to the enemy's property is one of the things the victors gain by winning. If they're a sovereign, they gain property or titles (whatever the war was about); if they're a normal person, they gain the right to go through some dude's pockets for cash. I'm not sure if Thenardier would have had the opportunity to plunder any English dead, but what he's doing is illegal! 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:In my period, the victor strips the bodies for cash and goods, then leaves the area. Anyone nearby can bury them if they feel like it--which is one of the ways we know that there were women fighting disguised in the 30YW, because some bishop found some women among the naked dead after Lützen. Even in the Greek 'you don't ever gently caress with the bodies' period stripping the losers for their stuff was an integral part of the process. The original trophy (now used to mark sporting victories instead of military ones) would basically have been a scarecrow hung with the armor of the fallen. It was usually put at the 'turning point,' or where ever the rout that ended the battle started, but, for instance, naval trophies often involved the rams of damaged enemy ships being dragged to a nearby shore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
I hope this is the right place to ask. Not too long ago, I found I had a great-great uncle (my brother's namesake) who was with these dudes. He died right after Anzio, and was awarded a Silver Star, and I want to find out more about him. Unfortunately, I know that an absolute crapload of wartime records went up in smoke in the 70's. Is there any way to find out more about him?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 23:44
|
|