|
khwarezm posted:The Irish war of independence was very low scale, hardly big by any definition, would that count? There was also a war between Hungary and Romania as well as the Turkish war of independence. I was so shocked when I saw the casualty figures for the Finish civil war compared to the Irish war of independence. I did once hear that Mao liked to talk about the Irish war as the textbook "how to fight a guerilla war against a great power" though.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Rabhadh posted:I did once hear that Mao liked to talk about the Irish war as the textbook "how to fight a guerilla war against a great power" though. "Wait 700 years and it'll sort itself out once your oppressors begin to lose their taste for empire." e: Not to distill the centuries of Irish Nationalist struggle into "waiting 700 years," but claiming that all that happened between subjugation and independence was a guerilla war is, like, the shittiest move you could possibly make. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
I don't believe anyone claimed that? The mao story refers to the 1919 to 1922 war
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:As long as we're talking about books, is there anything good about the military R&D/buildup of the interwar years? I mean, nobody wanted to repeat the slaughter on the Marne and a lot of theorists kinda figured that they had the technological/logistical abilities to avoid a repeat, but the only big European conflicts I can think of were the Polish-Soviet War of the early 20s (which was a real grab-bag technologically), the Irish War of Independence (which was largely irregular) and the Spanish Civil War. I own "Military Innovation in the Interwar Period," which is a collection of essays of varying quality. It's worth a look.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Hi, I like tanks, especially the tanks of WWII, is there a nice overview book about tank use in WWII? I'm looking for a book with specs, production details, use in battle, etc. For the American side of things, Armored Thunderbolt is a great book about American tank development before and during the War, with a specific focus on the Sherman. If you have the time and inclination it sounds right up your alley.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Hi, I like tanks, especially the tanks of WWII, is there a nice overview book about tank use in WWII? I'm looking for a book with specs, production details, use in battle, etc. Stephen Zaloga's "Armored Thunderbolt" is a really good book on US tanks and what went on with them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Is there anyone in this thread who'd like to ramble about the Wars of the Three Kingdoms?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Freudian posted:Is there anyone in this thread who'd like to ramble about the Wars of the Three Kingdoms? Unfortunately I never researched it although I wanted to read Romance. I did write a paper about the Warring States period where Qin unified China into a single polity for the first time; this was to examine whether it had a functional balance of power system or not. It's interesting because for a short time it looked like one might actually fully develop, contain the Qin and the Chinese intrastate warfare and competition could continue indefinitely (I imagine unification would probably happen inevitably once firearms were developed and propagated like in Japan). However instead Qin seemed very good at sniping various countries ally's to change sides or stay neutral in key conflicts, such as bribing officials to convince a King or two into saying "It isn't my problem." so the enemy alliance collapses and Qin can pick enemy states off one by one until he unites the whole thing, dies, has an incompetent son take over resulting in possibly the most epic civil war of all time between Chiang Yu and Liu Bang; the latter would win and found the Han dynasty and modern China is born. The whole period is pretty amazing in of itself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:The Irish war of independence was very low scale, hardly big by any definition, would that count? There was also a war between Hungary and Romania as well as the Turkish war of independence. In my head I was defining "big" as anything larger than a gang fight or something. Pretty bad definition, really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:I don't believe anyone claimed that? The mao story refers to the 1919 to 1922 war How's the war of independence different from the easter rising or the actions by the Fenians, etc? Other than the political result, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Do rulers ever realise that oh, crap, the heir to the throne is an utter ignoramus, and do something about it, or does no one think of their succession in such responsible terms?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Do rulers ever realise that oh, crap, the heir to the throne is an utter ignoramus, and do something about it, or does no one think of their succession in such responsible terms? Do you mean arranging a horse riding accident or severe illness?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Do rulers ever realise that oh, crap, the heir to the throne is an utter ignoramus, and do something about it, or does no one think of their succession in such responsible terms? FAUXTON posted:Do you mean arranging a horse riding accident or severe illness? HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Do rulers ever realise that oh, crap, the heir to the throne is an utter ignoramus, and do something about it, or does no one think of their succession in such responsible terms? Depends on the time period, I guess. I would be surprised if there was never a case anywhere in the world where an obviously unskilled ruler was put aside for or by a more skilled sibling. But the thing is that monarchy is founded on tradition and legitimacy, and any loving around with the laws of succession is a major problem with that. At some point you have to explain why this guy (or gal) is allowed to rule the country. It's easy when that guy commands the biggest loving army in the realm, because if you don't do what he says he comes and fucks your poo poo up. But you can't run a country on the basis forever. At some point you have to have people follow your orders without having to put a soldier next to them. Being able to point to ten generations of rulers handing over the realm to their firstborn sons does that quite well ("We always did it that way"), even if the first of them achieved his exalted position by having the biggest loving army in the realm. That's a major obstacle to just saying "Actually my firstborn is kinda dumb, guess my second born will inherit, no big deal right?" Besides, the role of rulers is generally overrated. They were always part of a system of government, and that continued to function whether they were able to work it effectively or not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Do rulers ever realise that oh, crap, the heir to the throne is an utter ignoramus, and do something about it, or does no one think of their succession in such responsible terms? Augustus made its his life's work to not have Tiberius succeed him, and was foiled by fate at every turn, when all of his chosen heirs died young.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Depends on the time period, I guess. I would be surprised if there was never a case anywhere in the world where an obviously unskilled ruler was put aside for or by a more skilled sibling. But the thing is that monarchy is founded on tradition and legitimacy, and any loving around with the laws of succession is a major problem with that. At some point you have to explain why this guy (or gal) is allowed to rule the country. It's easy when that guy commands the biggest loving army in the realm, because if you don't do what he says he comes and fucks your poo poo up. But you can't run a country on the basis forever. At some point you have to have people follow your orders without having to put a soldier next to them. Being able to point to ten generations of rulers handing over the realm to their firstborn sons does that quite well ("We always did it that way"), even if the first of them achieved his exalted position by having the biggest loving army in the realm. That's a major obstacle to just saying "Actually my firstborn is kinda dumb, guess my second born will inherit, no big deal right?" The French tried to dick around with the rules of succession because the rightful heir to the throne was English, and they wanted to choose a French heir. This directly led to the Hundred Years' War, which nicely illustrates your point about the problem with changing the line of succession.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Do you mean arranging a horse riding accident or severe illness? Give them a good tumble. George V realized Edward was an idiot in 1935 but it was far too late to do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Give them a good tumble. Did the British monarchy really matter in 1935 though? P. much all their executive powers were gone by then, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
No they didn't matter then, it was just the first example I could think of
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Give them a good tumble. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Sometimes no, sometimes yes. (Although "ignoramus" is quite weak; Don Carlos had, among other things, a head injury.) Hahaha: Wikipedia posted:Carlos had only four great-grandparents instead of the maximum of eight
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Hahaha: Edit: Hapsberging out:  The child in the middle will grow up to be Charles V. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:And Don Carlos wasn't even the worst! Like a bunch of Siamese cats, the poor things. (The smart ones were really smart too, though they tended to depression.) Usually brought on by tracing their family tree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Usually brought on by tracing their family tree. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Freudian posted:Is there anyone in this thread who'd like to ramble about the Wars of the Three Kingdoms? There's a bunch of forums dedicated to discussing it, you might have better luck there. Here's one: http://the-scholars.com/index.php
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Usually brought on by tracing their family tree. *wreath. I also have to say I love the editorial tone of wiki articles on Hapsburgs. Rather than saying the conventional eight great-grandparents or the normal eight, it's the maximum of eight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
The Confederate States of America was only the second best American State ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:The Confederate States of America was only the second best American State ever. Empire of Mexico want a word with you. Also Eo Brazil, but those guys didn't have a Habsburg ruler, so who gives a poo poo. WoodrowSkillson posted:Augustus made its his life's work to not have Tiberius succeed him, and was foiled by fate at every turn, when all of his chosen heirs died young. WoodrowSkillson posted:Augustus made its his life's work to not have Tiberius succeed him, and was foiled by fate at every turn, when all of his chosen heirs died young. Turned out Tiberius was the ruler Rome needed & deserved; perhaps there was something about the superstitions of fate and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:The Confederate States of America was only the second best American State ever. Edit: xthetenth posted:*wreath.  I am not entirely sure I have the words for what's going on here. Oh wait, here we are: quote:Gonzalo Alvarez from the University of Santiago de Compostela...for each person...calculated a figure called the “inbreeding coefficient”, symbolised by the letter F. It measures the probability that a person with two identical copies of a gene inherited both from the same ancestor. For example, a child born to cousins has an F value of 0.0625, but it becomes much higher if the parents come from a long line of inbred couples. The higher the value, the greater the degree of inbreeding in that lineage. Although we shouldn't ignore Don Carlos's head injury. I read somewhere that people with a history of brain injuries are hugely overrepresented in prisons, and reports at the time say the kid's personality took a nosedive after his accident. It's really sad that they didn't have the ability to treat him properly. (I don't even know if we would have, my knowledge of medicine ends at roughly the late 1700s.) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Freudian posted:Is there anyone in this thread who'd like to ramble about the Wars of the Three Kingdoms? I've read Rot3k but honestly have no idea how much of it was made up, outside of the really obvious parts where brave warriors kill hundreds of the enemy single handedly. It's kind of interesting reading between the lines and I got the sneaking suspicion that Shu-han was more like glorified bandit fiefdom than the glowing way Liu Bei is portrayed in the novel. There's always an excuse made for why Liu Bei backstabbing an ally was really justified under Confucianism because he was being true to the real Han emperor, while everyone else who does the same thing is just an utter scumbag. Fangz posted:Do rulers ever realise that oh, crap, the heir to the throne is an utter ignoramus, and do something about it, or does no one think of their succession in such responsible terms? It's a running theme in Romance of the Three Kingdoms that disinheriting the eldest son is a terrible, terrible idea that will lead to civil war. Whether that's based on sound political strategy or Confucian ideals, I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:How's the war of independence different from the easter rising or the actions by the Fenians, etc? Other than the political result, of course. I don't understand what you mean, the Easter rising happened three years prior to the war of independence and saw all of its leaders killed, they were two very different conflicts. For one the Easter rising was not an irregular conflict in the style of the war of independence and saw the rebels (who were not the IRA at this point) attempt to seize strategic locations around Dublin with a vague hope the country would rise up in general uprising but an expectation (and reality) that they would be crushed and the rising would become more important as a symbolic act of military defiance. By contrast the war of independence was mostly small skirmishes that were not really designed to seize territory and expel the enemy but were meant to weaken British resolve and make the cost of maintaining control of Ireland too distasteful to your average British taxpayer (especially just coming off of the world war). khwarezm fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Depends on the time period, I guess. I would be surprised if there was never a case anywhere in the world where an obviously unskilled ruler was put aside for or by a more skilled sibling. But the thing is that monarchy is founded on tradition and legitimacy, and any loving around with the laws of succession is a major problem with that. At some point you have to explain why this guy (or gal) is allowed to rule the country. It's easy when that guy commands the biggest loving army in the realm, because if you don't do what he says he comes and fucks your poo poo up. But you can't run a country on the basis forever. At some point you have to have people follow your orders without having to put a soldier next to them. Being able to point to ten generations of rulers handing over the realm to their firstborn sons does that quite well ("We always did it that way"), even if the first of them achieved his exalted position by having the biggest loving army in the realm. That's a major obstacle to just saying "Actually my firstborn is kinda dumb, guess my second born will inherit, no big deal right?" There's a lot of variation in tradition around the world, and in many places the monarch often had some latitude in determining succession. In Burma succession was supposed to pass to the first male offspring of the Chief Queen. The King could sometimes promote or demote women into that position, and thereby control his successor. The King is still constrained to choose from his offspring, but considering that Burmese Kings could have hundreds of wives and concubines, there could be a lot of candidates. Of course during succession this also often resulted in fratricidal bloodbaths in which claimants (or their mothers) attempted to exterminate all the dozens of half-brothers with competing claims. I think Korean Kings could, at least during a few dynasties, choose their heirs. It also led to occasional fratricide, like when the future King Taejong slaughtered three of his brothers and forced another to abdicate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I don't understand what you mean, the Easter rising happened three years prior to the war of independence and saw all of its leaders killed, they were two very different conflicts. For one the Easter rising was not an irregular conflict in the style of the war of independence and saw the rebels (who were not the IRA at this point) attempt to seize strategic locations around Dublin with a vague hope the country would rise up in general uprising but an expectation (and reality) that they would be crushed and the rising would become more important as a symbolic act of military defiance. And the war of independence started with a couple cops being shot. What I'm saying is that there existed a state of guerrilla war in Ireland well before 1919, and the conflict meandered back and forth a hazy-as-gently caress line between regular and guerrilla for decades if not centuries. Mao's tunnel-vision on some two years of bush raids against the backdrop of centuries of political and military development completely ignores stuff like resentment from 1916 contributing to Sinn Fein's political prominence, which then fed into the political ratification of the 1919 war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Looking into the future how do you guys get your research material. Currently I'm a university student so I get access to a poo poo ton of material but it obviously ends when I graduate. So how do you guys get your stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:I've read Rot3k but honestly have no idea how much of it was made up, outside of the really obvious parts where brave warriors kill hundreds of the enemy single handedly. It's kind of interesting reading between the lines and I got the sneaking suspicion that Shu-han was more like glorified bandit fiefdom than the glowing way Liu Bei is portrayed in the novel. There's always an excuse made for why Liu Bei backstabbing an ally was really justified under Confucianism because he was being true to the real Han emperor, while everyone else who does the same thing is just an utter scumbag. I'm not a scholar on the subject or anything but yeah Shu were dicks. They were glorified in later years because they were a southern empire located in a part of China not overrun by foreign invaders and thus could be used to legitimize resistance/a new kingdom. Zhang Fei in particular was a horrible person. On the other hand, the Wei, who are mostly portrayed as the bad guys in the story were generally decent people. The Yellow Turbans as well, hated in the book and they were way better people then they are portrayed as. And yeah first sons suck, Liu Shan was a layabout and would have been fine as a local landlord or something but totally unfit to rule an empire, The Sun's just kept on dying on after another and Cao Pi was a failure compared to his father (his successors were even worse)
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:The Confederate States of America was only the second best American State ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Yeah but they had more dudes (even if some counted as three-fifths of a dude).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:The French tried to dick around with the rules of succession because the rightful heir to the throne was English, and they wanted to choose a French heir. This directly led to the Hundred Years' War, which nicely illustrates your point about the problem with changing the line of succession. Sometimes when the rightful heir didn't have any Y chromosomes, someone would show up and dispute the succession on the grounds that you need at least one of those to be a good king. In England, that led to the war between Stephen and Matilda, in France, the new claimant showed up with an army, which was able to convince the lawyers that girls couldn't inherit. As far as the hundred years war thing, my recollection is that there were three candidates with pretty good claims, however, one was too English, one was too much of a dick, leaving the third one to inherit (he was kind of a fuckup, though). sullat fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Maybe not the right thread to ask but now I'm wondering, has anybody ever cucked a king and had his boy take the throne without people realizing it until it was too late, Game of Thrones-style?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Maybe not the right thread to ask but now I'm wondering, has anybody ever cucked a king and had his boy take the throne without people realizing it until it was too late, Game of Thrones-style? Allegedly, the first emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang. The story is kind of complicated but basically there was a wealthy merchant named Lu Buwei. He met a prince Yiren of the Qin kingdom who was being held hostage in another of the kingdoms that made up China at the time. He made friends with Yiren and managed some palace intrigue to have him designated as the crown prince and heir to the throne of Qin, and released from where he was being held. Lu Buwei then set Yiren up with his own concubine, who was supposedly already pregnant with Lu's child. When Yiren succeeded to the thrown that concubine became chief consort, the child Zheng became heir, and Lu Buwei became the power behind the throne. Yiren died only a few years after becoming king and was succeeded by that kid, with Lu Buwei functioning as regent. There's a lot of sordid and often ridiculous twists in this story that I won't get into but the quick version is that after Zheng attained majority and began ruling in his own right he smashed anybody who might threaten his control of Qin. This included Lu Buwei, who got stripped of his authority and his land and who committed suicide rather than wait to be finished off. After a lot of aggressive campaigning against the other Chinese Kingdoms, Zheng eventually conquered everybody and became the first emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang. This story was probably fabricated much later on to make the first emperor look bad, because he was a pretty controversial and unpopular figure for conquering everybody by force and then becoming a paranoid dictator. All the same, it's the popular version of events.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 05:31
|
|