|
I have some good stuff on the Irish escuadrons that fought in the 1640's, I'll attempt a post when I get home.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Three feet. If they bunch up any closer together, the musketeers will snag themselves on them and you'll have to spend precious seconds unhooking yourself, which has happened to me. Was the bunching a problem on the battlefield? It seems once things get going it would be really easy for soldiers to get pressed in due to either real or threatened attacks and the like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
Tomn posted:By the way, question about the escuadrons (that's how you're supposed to refer to the fighting unit, right?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Depends what you mean by "avoided". If we wave a magic friendship wand so Truman and Stalin become best buddies, sure. The problem with hypotheticals like that is the huge number of political and economic factors that drove World War II to its particular outcome, and if you change those factors you have a completely different world. Most theories of international relations say that a clash between a massive democratic capitalist government and a massive autocratic communist government was historically inevitable, and everyone involved knew this. There was some hope for peace and good relations between the West and East, but events like the Berlin Blockade and Korean War quickly made that hope untenable. Given how rabidly anti-Soviet Truman was (and not without good reason), I'm not sure he was ever going to be best buddies with Stalin. "If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances." -- Senator Truman, 1941. jng2058 posted:gently caress, Churchill hated Stalin. Before the war proper he was on record as saying that if he had to choose the Nazis or the Commies, he'd pick the Nazis and never look back. Once the war started, he changed his tune a bit. "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." Although there was the whole Operation Unthinkable thing... Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
What's the closest that the cold war came to a full on land war between NATO and the USSR? Has a proxy war ever gone hot between sponsoring countries? Say in Vietnam. If the US just said gently caress it and attacked the Chinese directly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
KildarX posted:Has a proxy war ever gone hot between sponsoring countries? Say in Vietnam. If the US just said gently caress it and attacked the Chinese directly. China went into Korea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Given how rabidly anti-Soviet Truman was (and not without good reason), I'm not sure he was ever going to be best buddies with Stalin. Given how anti-US Stalin was (for a few good reasons and many, many more bad ones), I'm not sure any US president could have any hope of being best buddies with him after the war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Given how anti-US Stalin was (for a few good reasons and many, many more bad ones), I'm not sure any US president could have any hope of being best buddies with him after the war. Truman and Stalin agreed on just about two things. One, Hitler was bad. Two, they didn't like each other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
For all the talk about Churchill and Stalin's dislike for one another, they did negotiate over control of countries in the Balkans. Churchill thought himself a great victor when he got the smaller part of "70/30 and 80/20" shares of control in countries like Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria. In the end, though, countries are all-or-nothing affairs so the numbers were meaningless. For all the talk of FDR being a dupe to Stalin, he didn't bother making deals like that. Churchill did manage to get Stalin to cut off support for communist insurgents in Greece, bringing in a long era of military dictatorship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Lmao. Yes, poor little Poland, one of the largest realms in Europe, who invaded Muscovy time and again, captured Moscow, and tried to put a pretender on the tsar's throne. Indeed. And while the Mongol invasions did one hell of a number on Russia, by the time we start talking about an independent Muscovite state in the 15th Century, their primary foreign policy concern was basically always Poland-Lithuania. canuckanese posted:Didn't they basically cripple the Teutonic Knights too? They sure did, and were pretty instrumental in throwing back the Ottomans from Vienna in 1683 as well, even after being poo poo-wrecked during The Deluge. What did them in was internal dysfunction, which made it particular susceptible to manipulation by Russian, Swedish and German actors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:04
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
The Berlin airlift was very nearly a "Berlin convoy with orders to shoot anything in the way" and that probably wouldn't have ended well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Given how rabidly anti-Soviet Truman was (and not without good reason), I'm not sure he was ever going to be best buddies with Stalin. That's why I used the words "magic friendship wand" to describe the likelihood of those two becoming buds. KildarX posted:What's the closest that the cold war came to a full on land war between NATO and the USSR? During the Berlin Crisis of 1961, there were NATO and USSR tanks staring each other down across the border. One itchy trigger finger could have triggered a major battle, so Khrushchev and Kennedy sensibly agreed to withdraw. The very next year, the Cold War came its closest to a nuclear exchange during the Cuban Missile Crisis. An American ship tried to force a Soviet submarine to the surface by dropping practice depth charges. The captain and political officer were unable to contact Moscow, and fearing a war had already broken out, wanted to launch a nuclear torpedo at the American fleet. The second-in-command, Vasily Arkhipov, convinced them to surface instead and head home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Hackworth talks about the convoy in '61 to reinforce Berlin after the Wall went up in his doorstop of a memoir. Jes' rolling down the autobahn in a compact group a hundred miles long, the whole corridor lined with East Bloc security forces. Operation Long Thrust, presumably because everyone was deeply hosed if anything kicked off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:If it's Spanish. If it's German, it's a batallion. If it's anyone else, I guess it's 'batallion' in their language. Interesting. In Nordic armies an eskadron/skvadron is a company sized unit led by a Rittmeister (equals to captain), and it appears squadron in English is the same. At what point did the term suffer such inflation? I presume it came with some profound tactical reorganization.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Interesting. In Nordic armies an eskadron/skvadron is a company sized unit led by a Rittmeister (equals to captain), and it appears squadron in English is the same. At what point did the term suffer such inflation? I presume it came with some profound tactical reorganization. Nah, in US parlance, at least, a squadron is a cavalry battalion. A troop is the cavalry-specific company-sized formation. I believe you're right for the UK/Commonwealth, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
KildarX posted:Has a proxy war ever gone hot between sponsoring countries? Say in Vietnam. If the US just said gently caress it and attacked the Chinese directly. That thing was the foreign policy equivalent of operating a machine press with your long hair down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:That's why I used the words "magic friendship wand" to describe the likelihood of those two becoming buds. Magic Friendship Wand is my favorite brand of
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Oh yeah--Cyrano4747, in answer to your earlier question, check this out: That dude is probably set for life, I doubt that even a 17th century mercenary could figure out a way to burn through that much money (they were not good with money).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
Hegel, I feel like I've asked you this in this thread, or a previous iteration, but how do you feel about Q? If you have read it, how accurate is it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Lmao. Yes, poor little Poland, one of the largest realms in Europe, who invaded Muscovy time and again, captured Moscow, and tried to put a pretender on the tsar's throne. Many Poles are pretty  about the fact only Napoleon and PLC occupied Moscow, but when you check how magnates, and then PLC itself used Time of Troubles to take Moscow, put two candidates on throne it isn't that impressive. I call BS on your claim that Muscovy was invaded by Poland many times, it's even more BS to claim that Moscow was captured many times, since both times Polish troops entered the city they were simply let in. When you look at wars and the treaties then you realize that since Ivan III it's Muscovy/Russia that are more often aggressors and most of wars went their way, resulting in increasing Muscovite/Russian territory. It's similar when you count time Moscow was occupied by Poles (~1 year) and Warsaw being occupied by Russians (100ish years). So: Moscow was taken by non-Poles in 1237–1238, 1480, 1571, 1611 and 1812, and by Poles in 1605 and 1612. For some reason only that last "visit" is deemed important enough to be part of popular history, which again makes me all .On the other hand Russian forces stormed and took Warsaw in 1794, 1831. They entered city without much fight in 1813 and 1863 Warsaw was also stormed and taken three times in 1655–1658 by the Swedish, Brandenburgian and Transylvanian forces. Then again by Swedes in 1702. Most of my sources were wikipedia pages, so if you see some omissions/mistakes please point them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that this is not the thread in which to start nationalistic dick-waving contests about how invaded who harder. Serious question, during the early modern period I know the focus was on sieges instead of battles, and that battles were rare aberrations that usually happened when things went wrong. So how were wars won? Was it a matter of sieging faster and better than the other guy? Of capturing the right strategic fortresses to allow you to daisy-chain your way to a point so important that your enemy is forced to sue for peace? Or just slugging and sieging back and forth until one side was too exhausted to keep it up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Or just slugging and sieging back and forth until one side was too exhausted to keep it up? They didn't call it the 30 Years War because it was so much fun they just couldn't stop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
There was also a matter of paying your troops, and quite often campaigns broke because troops decided to go home, or switch sides, or just pillage and rape anything around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 12:34
|
|
|
Check the facts:
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
Concerning Poland, Poland can propably claim the most "underrated" General/Marshall of modern history, Konstantin Rokosovsky. Of course, mention your appreciation for the Polish Martial abilities of General Rokosovsky in a polish bar, and you propably get bottled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
I've heard a joke about Rokosovsky: 1946, meeting of polish generals, Marshal Rokosovsky tries to give speech in polish,but it doesn't go well. Then the voice from the audience: "Константин, говори на нашем языке, мы здесь все поляки!" (sorry about my google translated Russian) e: I doubt Rokosovsky had as much impact on USSR as Iron Felix. alex314 fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
"Konstanin, speak in our language, we here are all Poles!" Is that correct or has my Russian deteriorated more than I thought?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:"Konstanin, speak in our language, we here are all Poles!" Yes, that's what I was trying to write. It's a jab at the fact that many senior commanders of Polish army were Russians or ethnic Poles that were in USSR for so long they didn't really speak Polish, or their families were rusicized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:This is late, but civic militias and professional soldiers are different things. In many cities, if you're a citizen and a head of household you have to have a weapon and either serve in the militia, provide a relative to serve in the militia, or (if you're a woman/too old/etc) contribute some money. You wouldn't use peasants for the militia because they're not citizens. Sometimes they practice a bit, a lot of the time they're sort of like proto-cops or watchmen. During the worst years of the 30 Years' War they'd defend their cities against everything else in the region; they're the people who shot at that English ambassador in the excerpt I posted last fall. Gladi fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Gladi posted:Oh, I thought that parts of city militias would be sent into the Landesdefension. And I am looking at the paper talking about the Czech Crown and it seems to agree that normal people were made to serve. It talks about burghers and farmers being called. cheerfullydrab posted:Hegel, I feel like I've asked you this in this thread, or a previous iteration, but how do you feel about Q? If you have read it, how accurate is it? ArchangeI posted:They didn't call it the 30 Years War because it was so much fun they just couldn't stop. There's legal theory that says that if you win a pitched battle it functions like a verdict and you can use that to claim victory. But it turns out that if you ignore that and keep pumping cash into a conflict, it'll just...keep happening. I don't really know if anyone expected conflicts like that though. Consider the mercenary contract: it's for one month or the campaign. It's written into their customs that these interminable early modern conflicts are kind of weird. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:That dude is probably set for life, I doubt that even a 17th century mercenary could figure out a way to burn through that much money (they were not good with money). What did they have to spend it on? Pretty much hookers and liquors?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Don't forget flamboyant clothes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:What did they have to spend it on? Pretty much hookers and liquors? Gambling Hookers Necessities Sub-official circulation of material goods within the community (like if you manage to steal some fabric and you don't need new clothes you'll sell it to your friends; Peter Hagendorf's second wife built an oven at one point and sold bread to soldiers, etc) Edit: This demographic drinks wine by the quart. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:30 years? Noob. You'll earn your hussar's wings if you manage to untangle this whole mess and explain it to me in a simple form.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:You'll earn your hussar's wings if you manage to untangle this whole mess and explain it to me in a simple form. One of the most powerful empires in the world is facing a bunch of religious extremists who belong to a fanatical and iconoclastic faith which the members of the empire hate but do not understand. Some of the people who promulgate the war are talented, but some antagonize the natives more than they should. Planned armistices fizzle out. Although the empire is staggeringly wealthy, turns out it's all based on weird financial shell games; compounding this, the impact of such a long and costly war plus bad economic policy causes massive economic disruption, which leads in turn to political unrest at home. Meanwhile, the best infantry in the world is betrayed by an important government official who subordinates his country's war-making capacity to his own political opinions, including contempt for the established bureaucracy of the army. This causes some high-profile defeats. Eventually the empire has to make peace with the rebellious religious extremists and withdraw, but their economy never recovers. 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:One of the most powerful empires in the world is facing a bunch of religious extremists who belong to a fanatical and iconoclastic faith which the members of the empire hate but do not understand. Some of the people who promulgate the war are talented, but some antagonize the natives more than they should. Planned armistices fizzle out. Although the empire is staggeringly wealthy, the impact of such a long and costly war plus bad economic policy causes massive economic disruption, which leads in turn to political unrest at home. Meanwhile, the best infantry in the world is betrayed by an important government official who subordinates his country's war-making capacity to his own political opinions, including contempt for the established bureaucracy of the army. This causes some high-profile defeats. Eventually the empire has to make peace with the rebellious religious extremists and withdraw, but their economy never recovers. e: the smilie didn't load for me 
StashAugustine fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
You know....that story reminds me of something. Anyway, I'd buy your books. 224 German states 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:224 German states Edit: Oh yeah, and the empire in question is intermittently swamped by weird-rear end debt. Not to mention the deleterious effects of global climate change. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
RE: Q From wikipedia quote:The book follows the journey of an Anabaptist radical across Europe in the first half of the 16th century as he joins in various movements and uprisings that come as a result of the Protestant reformation. The book spans 30 years as he is pursued by 'Q' (short for "Qoèlet"), a spy for the Roman Catholic Church cardinal Giovanni Pietro Carafa. The main character, who changes his name many times during the story, first fights in the German Peasants' War beside Thomas Müntzer, during which time he takes part in negotiations which are eventually formalised as the Twelve Articles. Following this, he battles in Münster's siege, during the Münster Rebellion, and some years later, in Venice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
It's one of my favorite books, especially the parts about the Münster Rebellion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 23:00
|
|