|
Napoleon Total War had some seriously janky art. That's supposed to be one of Napoleon's Chasseurs a Cheval, a unit famed for their mobility and very asymmetric legs.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Probably something like that, they were a pretty big pain in his rear end. The Russian stance on horses was "The women can always birth more men, but we paid for these horses in gold!" I always thought that Russia could get cheap horse supply from its Asian regions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:I always thought that Russia could get cheap horse supply from its Asian regions. Those horses are not the best quality for heavy cavalry
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Napoleon Total War had some seriously janky art. Also famous for horse drifting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:It's not a sensible pose, but it's also not impossible. It does seem like he is an action figure though, and rotates perfectly at the waist. He looks like a ragdoll sewn together by a blind person. FAUXTON posted:Also famous for horse drifting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Holy poo poo Imperial Russia, leave De Tolly alone he's trying to fight a loving war against Napoleon. Seriously, the poor guy is facing one of the biggest invasions even by a multi national army led by one of the best commanders of his era and all he gets is suspicions, racism and even back chat from the court and his own army staff to the lowest levels in the Imperial Russian Army whilst playing it safe and not giving Napoleon what he wants. If there ever was a position in the Napoleonic Wars that could have ended with a 'gently caress all of you guys, I am out!' sort of moment Barclay De Tolly would certainly be one of the top runners up for it. steinrokkan posted:The horse in the front is just fed up and giving the camera a bitter look. If you were a horse in a modern Total War game, you'd be incredibly bitter too. SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:It's not a sensible pose, but it's also not impossible. It does seem like he is an action figure though, and rotates perfectly at the waist. I would buy a Bismarck action figure in a heartbeat, especially if it had that sword. SeanBeansShako posted:Holy poo poo Imperial Russia, leave De Tolly alone he's trying to fight a loving war against Napoleon. Seriously, the poor guy is facing one of the biggest invasions even by a multi national army led by one of the best commanders of his era and all he gets is suspicions, racism and even back chat from the court and his own army staff to the lowest levels in the Imperial Russian Army whilst playing it safe and not giving Napoleon what he wants. My (admittedly politically slanted) Soviet-era history textbook alternated between "Yay, heroism of the Russian people!" and "Boo, prejudice and conservatism of the monarchy!". It kind of skipped over about how everyone was a dick to de Tolly, and not just the monarchists. The maps were cool though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:My (admittedly politically slanted) Soviet-era history textbook alternated between "Yay, heroism of the Russian people!" and "Boo, prejudice and conservatism of the monarchy!". It kind of skipped over about how everyone was a dick to de Tolly, and not just the monarchists. The maps were cool though. The Soviet relationship to the (First) Great Patriotic War always struck me as very interesting. The generals are virtually all aristocrats, members of class that the Soviets actively purged during the 1910s and 1920s, yet people like Kutuzov come off very well in Soviet tellings of history and become national heroes. The Soviet Government frames WWII with the same language, they call it the Great Patriotic War, the same label applied to the 1812 war. So you have a war almost entirely initiated and led by aristocrats being idolized by this supposedly egalitarian, anti-aristocratic state. I wonder how (if at all) the Soviets navigated those contradictions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
It's referred to as the Patriotic War of 1812 (so not quite as great). The whole thing with promoting aristocratic military figures came around when Stalin realized that an awful lot of people might not be quite inclined to fight to the death for their Party and its Chief, but would still fight for their country and culture. After that I guess it kind of stuck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Well, one of the early requirements of the New Model Army was to be Protestant, and the army attracted a disproportionate share of Protestant fanatics. Cromwell won because he was God's Englishman. The repression after Cromwell also did England a huge favour because we exported the religious nutters abroad where they could do no real harm. Englands most terrible, tragic mistake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Aren't you supposed to not be posting here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
If Paradox paintings are being shared can someone please dig up Robert E. Lee Literally Leading a Mounted Charge into British Infantry?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
What about the painting of Brezhnev leading the Malaya Zemlya landing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Now I want to see Gandhi riding a nuke like Slim Pickens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
General China posted:Cromwell won because he was God's Englishman. The repression after Cromwell also did England a huge favour because we exported the religious nutters abroad where they could do no real harm. Please do not return to this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Who is that guy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Not judging, everyone loves a good froth. And I didn't fly into a nerd rage when Animal implied that the New Model Army won because they were Protestants, I did some revisions and went to bed like a normal person. Poor choice of words. I meant Puritan (which may not make the implication any better.) the idea being that their religious zeal could have helped their focus. I recently read 'The Crusades through Arab Eyes' which is obviously a very different conflict, but one in which religious puritanism is a sort of tool gave focus to another group of people (the disparate Muslim coalition) and is one of the things that seemed to have helped turn a group of rabble into an organized coherent army that could repel a less united enemy. I am a completely unreligious person so I hope you dont think that I am leading somewhere I am not. Animal fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Davincie posted:Who is that guy? Just click his rap sheet and move on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
Debbie Metallica posted:Please do not return to this thread. Hey buddy, this is my thread and I make the rules!!! (but seriously general china you still cannot conduct even the most simplistic contextual analysis, you don't belong here)
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:
by creating Suvorov military academies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suvorov_Military_School
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Can anyone help me find a milhist picture? I saw it on Wikipedia a while ago but I can't seem to find it now. It was taken in the ACW, and it has two black union soldiers firing around the corner of a house and I think a barrel down an open street. I want to know what battle it is so I can read up on it because there were so few urban actions undertook in that war. I've looked up several things on wikipedia trying to trace it back including african american units in the ACW, urban warfare, suppressing fire, etc. e: nvm, I found the picture and it's not quite what I remembered it as. Anyway, it says it was taken at Dutch Gap and there really isn't much information on it other. Must have been one of those many small skirmishes that don't make the books I guess. Frostwerks fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Is it this (I know it isn't a picture): Some of the heaviest street fighting happened in Fredericksburg iirc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
It was this actually. But that's a cool drawing regardless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:It was this actually. But that's a cool drawing regardless. Yeah, there's basically a 0% chance that wasn't a staged photo. Still cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah, there's basically a 0% chance that wasn't a staged photo. im pretty sure most photos in that era are staged photos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:im pretty sure most photos in that era are staged photos. Yup.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:im pretty sure most photos in that era are staged photos. Even the post-battle photos? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Even the post-battle photos? This one was  http://www.civilwaracademy.com/alexander-gardner.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Even the post-battle photos? Yes they would move corpses around as they saw fit, repositioning bodies for better camera angles happened all the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Even the post-battle photos? Why are there a bunch of dudes just dead in a field? There don't appear to be any artillery craters nearby, and machineguns weren't widely used in the civil war AFAIK. Were they just told to charge across a bare field or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Why are there a bunch of dudes just dead in a field? There don't appear to be any artillery craters nearby, and machineguns weren't widely used in the civil war AFAIK. Were they just told to charge across a bare field or something? Uh. Pretty much... yeah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Why are there a bunch of dudes just dead in a field? There don't appear to be any artillery craters nearby, and machineguns weren't widely used in the civil war AFAIK. Were they just told to charge across a bare field or something? Also, canister won't leave craters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Why are there a bunch of dudes just dead in a field? There don't appear to be any artillery craters nearby, and machineguns weren't widely used in the civil war AFAIK. Were they just told to charge across a bare field or something? Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Walking across open fields in straight lines was how wars were fought for a couple hundred years. A line of guys standing shoulder-to-shoulder is pretty much the optimal formation for delivering fire to the enemy when you're armed with flintlocks. If you're working with smoothbore muskets those too opposing lines are going to be practically within rock throwing distance of each other, although by the ACW rifled muskets and the Minie ball had opened that range up to a couple hundred yards. While we often hear about the so-called shotgun-approach as being the key to delivering accuracy and stopping power in battle, one of the key elements of formation fighting that isn't often talked about is that it is much easier to keep organized. It sounds insane when you hear about it now, but it's important to remember that this was in an era of combat where the smoke and noise of the rifles would strongly impair unit command and control. It was very easy for officers to lose command of their units in the heat of battle when sight and hearing had been thoroughly compromised. Conducting a battle in the loosely spread out manner that we would now was considered tactically unsound - your soldiers would fire all their ammunition while too far away, and then flee the battle in the confusion and end up getting run down piecemeal. Better, it was believed, to accept the vulnerabilities of fighting away from cover in exchange for the confidence of knowing that you weren't fighting alone, and the peer pressure to obey orders, not to mention the morale shattering effect of a company fusillade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Watch "Death in the Civil War" and you get a good idea what happened after battles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
I understand all this but didn't they have semi-modern rifles, not muskets? As in, I can see it working when accuracy, range and visibility are piss-poor, but the weapons they were using were the predecessors of modern guns. Was it a case of tactics not having yet caught up with technology? Or am I seeing this wrong completely?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I understand all this but didn't they have semi-modern rifles, not muskets? As in, I can see it working when accuracy, range and visibility are piss-poor, but the weapons they were using were the predecessors of modern guns. Was it a case of tactics not having yet caught up with technology? Or am I seeing this wrong completely?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Even the post-battle photos? The creepiest part of this photo after watching the Ken Burns documentary was the narrator's comment about how when men were hit in the ACW, they'd frantically pull up their shirts and pull down their pants to see if they were hit in the gut. A gut shot, they knew, would be fatal. Guys like this spent their last moments in horror as they bled out on the field. Here:  Have some daffodils to wash that out of your mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I understand all this but didn't they have semi-modern rifles, not muskets? As in, I can see it working when accuracy, range and visibility are piss-poor, but the weapons they were using were the predecessors of modern guns. Was it a case of tactics not having yet caught up with technology? Or am I seeing this wrong completely? Partially it was a tactical deficiency, partially it was a tactical reality. At the beginning of the war the troops on both sides were civilian levees, and almost uniformly green and undrilled. Boys would be pulled from the streets of Philadelphia or the farms of Virginia and be expected to fight. The quality of the troops was so poor that a battlefield victory was more dependent on morale and supplies than anything else. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense to adhere to the traditional formations that had been the key to battlefield victory for thousands of years. But as time went on and the quality of both the weapons and the soldiers increased, the deficiency of the tactics became more and more apparent. Men were getting thrown into absolute bloodbaths for little merit. The Battle of Cold Harbor is considered somewhat emblematic of this failure in tactics. Burns' documentary paints a brutal picture of the battle. Over the course of two weeks, Grant launched attack after attack on Lee's heavily entrenched forces, suffering terrible casualties to no effect. Lee's soldiers were outnumbered, but they proved that veteran soldiers protected by heavy fortifications would be able to devastate ranks of attackers that were rushing the defenses. In the end, despite being outnumbered nearly two to one, there were only 4,000 Confederate casualties as compared to 12,000 Union casualties. Grant himself regretted making the last assault on Cold Harbor, admitting that it was pointless. In particular you can see why entrenching became the next big tactical development, as it combined the organizational strengths of formation fighting with the battlefield realities of accurate repeating weaponry. Your troops wouldn't run away from the trenchline or embankment, and sergeants/couriers would be protected and able to communicate orders directly with the troops. Of course the drawback is that it's difficult to conduct offensives from within that trench, but during the Civil War the solution was to lure your opponent into attacking, devastate their lines, and then march over their broken armies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The creepiest part of this photo after watching the Ken Burns documentary was the narrator's comment about how when men were hit in the ACW, they'd frantically pull up their shirts and pull down their pants to see if they were hit in the gut. A gut shot, they knew, would be fatal. Guys like this spent their last moments in horror as they bled out on the field. Yup. Gut shot with a Minie ball. Lucky if you bleed out within a few minutes/hours. Unlucky if you get your bowels blown out and the fever kills you in the next days, because you start to rot alive. Gangrene and gas gangrene is pretty horrible. Interesting to hear what happened to the wounded. Watch the movie, just to get an idea how Gettysburg smelled, because the task of picking up and burrying the dead was left to the inhabitants at first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 07:15
|
|