|
In positive German military things have a Civil War song about German immigrants fighting for the Union. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUSJA-vtg_s
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
StashAugustine posted:In positive German military things have a Civil War song about German immigrants fighting for the Union. There's a lot of really cool history about German/Czech immigrants to the US getting caught up in the Civil War in the south, though I think I've posted about it a few times in this or the last thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
SpaceViking posted:There's a lot of really cool history about German/Czech immigrants to the US getting caught up in the Civil War in the south, though I think I've posted about it a few times in this or the last thread. It's what happened to a branch of my dad's family. Got caught up in the 1848 unpleasentness in S. Germany, exit stage L to the US, land in Kentucky, settled down and had another generation of kids just in time to see things turn to poo poo all over again. They made the conscious decision to have a couple males from the generation that came over go to Illinois to enlist Union and a one go south to Tennessee to enlist Confederate so that no matter what the outcome they wouldn't be stuck without advocates on the winning side.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It's what happened to a branch of my dad's family. Got caught up in the 1848 unpleasentness in S. Germany, exit stage L to the US, land in Kentucky, settled down and had another generation of kids just in time to see things turn to poo poo all over again. They made the conscious decision to have a couple males from the generation that came over go to Illinois to enlist Union and a one go south to Tennessee to enlist Confederate so that no matter what the outcome they wouldn't be stuck without advocates on the winning side. For my area (Central Texas), they came in at about the same time, but most of them shared the desire to avoid the draft at all costs. In a town about 50 miles north of where I grew up, German settlers were massacred by Confederate troops for trying to flee to Mexico. The settlers on my Dad's side of the family went out west and joined the Texas Homeguard, while the ones on my Mom's side fled into the oak forests and hid from the conscription patrols in there, only coming out in drag to help with the harvest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
I've heard people talk about immigrants at the time. They said immigrants just arriving would be offered the chance to enlist at the docks for citizenship after.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
Estonian and some Latvian forces also gave them a hiding first in Battle of Cesis. A relatively small battle, but celebrated annually to this day in Estonia, because it was seen as getting even with the Germans after centuries of German rule. Entente was of course pissed off because everyone was supposed to fight the reds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It's what happened to a branch of my dad's family. Got caught up in the 1848 unpleasentness in S. Germany, exit stage L to the US, land Happened to a great-uncle to the xth degree of my mom's family. I've actually got a turtle shell... thingy (glasses case?) with a bullet hole in in one end and not the other, so that's pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It's what happened to a branch of my dad's family. Got caught up in the 1848 unpleasentness in S. Germany, exit stage L to the US, land in Kentucky, settled down and had another generation of kids just in time to see things turn to poo poo all over again. They made the conscious decision to have a couple males from the generation that came over go to Illinois to enlist Union and a one go south to Tennessee to enlist Confederate so that no matter what the outcome they wouldn't be stuck without advocates on the winning side. That reminds me to ask, what was going on in Mexico during the ACW that one of my ancestors would be going there as a Prussian officer? He apparently then ditched his orders and joined the Union Army for a long stint as a meteorologist, and I never really got what he was doing in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:That reminds me to ask, what was going on in Mexico during the ACW that one of my ancestors would be going there as a Prussian officer? He apparently then ditched his orders and joined the Union Army for a long stint as a meteorologist, and I never really got what he was doing in the first place. Napoleon III tried to turn it into a French colony/puppet state while the US was busy with a civil war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mexican_Empire
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
uPen posted:Napoleon III tried to turn it into a French colony/puppet state while the US was busy with a civil war. Any idea on why a Prussian would be going over there? The old fashioned observer thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
100 Years Ago In Paris, virtually every lorry, omnibus, and other horseless carriage that's capable of transporting people has already been requisitioned for the war effort. There are still troops to bring up to reinforce Sixth Army. What does General Gallieni, a good Frenchman all the way, do? He goes out into the street and hails a taxi, of course. Over the next two days, every remaining cab driver in the city is pressed into the service of France and makes the hazardous journey up to Sixth Army, packed with as many belligerent poilus as can be shoved into the back. (Not being stupid, many of them make sure to set the meter before departing, and some time later, Gallieni receives the bill.) Legend has it that these reserves tipped the course of the battle, and indeed the entire war, providing just enough strength in the very nick of time to pin von Kluck's First Army well and truly down while the BEF and Fifth Army marches clean through the gap, catches the general with his pants down, and flanks two German armies at once. Some latter-day historians with no romance in their souls have pointed out the small number of taxis, the number of reinforcements brought up by them compared to those who travelled by rail, or by lorry, and said that there's no way that they could have been as pivotal as is often portrayed. It's even a valid point to make, since one of the takeaways for the French as a whole from this battle will be that yes, there is still room in this war for dash, pluck and elan to overcome the enemy. (Original thinking, on the other hand...) But I think that there will be more than enough time to come in the next four years of war for cold, dispassionate analysis of suffering and woe. I'm quite content to believe in the legend of the taxis of the Marne, and to see it continue. We of course know that there is a bittersweet note at the end of it; if the legend is true, then they are directly responsible for prolonging the war... Anyway. In eastern France, things are not looking so good. The fortress of Maubeuge finally falls today, after a two-week siege. Verdun and Nancy still hold out, but the situation is rapidly worsening. A large salient is developing south of Verdun that threatens to separate the French 2nd and 3rd Armies; if they retire, key French defensive positions along the River Meuse will have to be given up. Even further east, in Prussia, having already routed one Russian army, von Hindenburg turns his attentions to another. Over the course of the next week, Russia will lose a further 125,000 men (in exchange for 10,000 German casualties) and their 1st Army will have been unceremoniously removed from Germany. And the Battle of Drina continues, with Austro-Hungarian attacks beginning to make more headway against the Serbs. The last thing to mention is another quasi-legendary event that I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to, given the situation. The story goes (from at least one witness, the same Lieutenant Spears, allegedly the first British soldier to arrive in France, who provided the description of General Joffre earlier) that Joffre has received reports that some BEF commanders have lost their nerve, or their fighting spirit, or both. He therefore proceeds to BEF HQ to speak with the organ grinder, and proceeds to deliver a lengthy and impassioned cross between a speech and plea, finishing with words to the effect of "Monsieur le Marechal, c'est la France qui vous supplie!" The Chief is apparently moved to tears; he attempts to reply, but his command of Joffre's language fails him, and he mutters to an aide "drat it, I can't explain! Tell him that all men can do, our fellows will do!" Presumably much hearty back-slapping ensues, French gives Joffre a nice cup of tea, and they all part the best of mates once again. Again, we've got coming more horrible stories about generals than we can shake a stick at, so I'm not inclined to probe too carefully into this one. Agean90 posted:HAIG DID NOTHING, WRONG Fixed that for you 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Any idea on why a Prussian would be going over there? The old fashioned observer thing? At the time lots of the royals were linked in some way like uncles, brothers, cousins and so on. Prussia tended to be pretty good with military issues and order too. Considering all the Mexican uprisals and such, prolly was some family link to send over some Prussians to figure out where they went wrong* and how to get poo poo together. *You know, aside from the fact they tried to just punch Mexico and declare them property of some other dude.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Fixed that for you I should put together a proper effort post on the theme of "Robertson was the real donkey".
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
uPen posted:Napoleon III tried to turn it into a French colony/puppet state while the US was busy with a civil war. It's a good thing that didn't work out, because it would've messed with the Confederacy's plan to conquer Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
It certainly didn't work out for Emperor Max. It was one of the more stranger episodes of conflict in the 19th century.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Any idea on why a Prussian would be going over there? The old fashioned observer thing? There are any number of possible reasons. Many of the European powers had significant commercial interests in Mexico. Mexico had just come out of a civil war (1857-1860) and had accumulated large debts to Britain, France, and Spain, payment of which was suspended by President Benito Juarez. This was the initial justification that enabled French intervention. I don't know offhand if Prussia held any of Mexico's foreign debt, but there was a German mercantile presence in Mexico City that is sometimes referred to as a "colony." It also would have been, as you say, an opportunity to observe French troops in action ahead of a looming confrontation back on the continent. He could also have been acting in a private capacity as a mercenary, because Prussian officers were well-regarded--here's a wiki entry for one such guy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
re: the potential mercenary advisor angle, it's also worth noting that virtually all of Prussia's officers were East Prussian Junkers, and the Prussian nobility at that time was under some serious financial stress, even by the standards of European 19th century nobility. One of the reasons that Prussians became so well known as foreign military advisors during that period was the combination of excellent officer training for a good, professional military with economic realities that forced a loving LOT of families to basically go find a job for the first time in a few generations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:economic realities that forced a loving LOT of families to basically go find a job for the first time in a few generations. The great tragedy of the 19th century.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
sullat posted:The great tragedy of the 19th century. Weeeeeeeeeeeel, given that a lot of those guys's version of "getting a job" was joining the military, getting balls deep in German politics, and then strongly advocating eastward expansion of Prussian/Imperial German territory to re-secure the financial future of their families and those of their peers. . . . . . . I'm just saying maybe a couple thousand fewer "vons" who wanted their very own chunk of the Vistula Plain might have been an OK thing for the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:re: the potential mercenary advisor angle, it's also worth noting that virtually all of Prussia's officers were East Prussian Junkers, and the Prussian nobility at that time was under some serious financial stress, even by the standards of European 19th century nobility. One of the reasons that Prussians became so well known as foreign military advisors during that period was the combination of excellent officer training for a good, professional military with economic realities that forced a loving LOT of families to basically go find a job for the first time in a few generations. Okay, that makes a lot of sense and would do a pretty good job of explaining why a dude would be en route to Mexico, be willing and able to say no screw this and become an officer in the Union army. Dude was a meteorologist, so he was able to stay in after the war at least until 1871. I guess getting in on one of the worst polar expeditions is a less bad plan than trying to carve out part of the Vistula Plain, so there's that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
It seems like it wasn't uncommon for military officers to serve with other countries if they weren't needed at home. John Paul Jones, for example, served in the Russian navy as an admiral. I remember reading about British naval officers also serving as explorers or admirals with the Russians. Actually, if anyone knows more about this, please post. It's something I find very interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
It's kind of got an equivalent in the enlisted ranks, at least in the US military (and maybe in others, I don't know a lot about others in that period). When work dried up, the US army would get a lot more recruits because poor people who weren't getting opportunities elsewhere would join up. Army size was a pretty decent indicator of how well the economy was doing. This also meant that a lot of the enlisted ranks were full of immigrants from wherever, which led to serious issues with mistreatment of soldiers due to nativist sentiment among officers before the Mexican-American war, which helped contribute to the Mexicans getting enough deserters to form the San Patricios.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:There are any number of possible reasons. Many of the European powers had significant commercial interests in Mexico. Mexico had just come out of a civil war (1857-1860) and had accumulated large debts to Britain, France, and Spain, payment of which was suspended by President Benito Juarez. This was the initial justification that enabled French intervention. I don't know offhand if Prussia held any of Mexico's foreign debt, but there was a German mercantile presence in Mexico City that is sometimes referred to as a "colony." It also would have been, as you say, an opportunity to observe French troops in action ahead of a looming confrontation back on the continent. He could also have been acting in a private capacity as a mercenary, because Prussian officers were well-regarded--here's a wiki entry for one such guy. Then there's the Prussian officer that's more well known to Americans, Baron von Steuben.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:It's kind of got an equivalent in the enlisted ranks, at least in the US military (and maybe in others, I don't know a lot about others in that period). When work dried up, the US army would get a lot more recruits because poor people who weren't getting opportunities elsewhere would join up. Army size was a pretty decent indicator of how well the economy was doing. This also meant that a lot of the enlisted ranks were full of immigrants from wherever, which led to serious issues with mistreatment of soldiers due to nativist sentiment among officers before the Mexican-American war, which helped contribute to the Mexicans getting enough deserters to form the San Patricios. I don't know how true an army size being an indicator of a good economy is, after the Civil War the US Army was fairly small despite having the world's largest economy within a few decades, which didn't really change until WW2. However the US was in a unique position having a huge country bordered by 2 huge oceans and much weaker nations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Mustang posted:I don't know how true an army size being an indicator of a good economy is, after the Civil War the US Army was fairly small despite having the world's largest economy within a few decades, which didn't really change until WW2. However the US was in a unique position having a huge country bordered by 2 huge oceans and much weaker nations. The better the economy the smaller the army. This also isn't necessarily as true after the Civil war as before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
HisMajestyBOB posted:It seems like it wasn't uncommon for military officers to serve with other countries if they weren't needed at home. John Paul Jones, for example, served in the Russian navy as an admiral. I remember reading about British naval officers also serving as explorers or admirals with the Russians. Most of the guys that you see running around serving in foreign militaries weren't technically still in their home military when they ran off. Their term of service was up, they had a highly useful job skill or three, and there were frequently other nations paying very well for officers to come over and help them develop their poo poo. The Russians, for example, were throwing money at modernization all through the 19th century, but in a real rear end-backwards top-down kind of way. They'd buy foreign equipment, hire foreign advisors to train their own officers, start up domestic officer's academies etc. . . all while still having an industrial base that was trying to get off the ground and huge swaths of countryside that were essentially still in the middle ages. It's a big part of what made pre-revolutoin Tsarist Russia so goddamned bizarre. They did the same thing in a lot of other areas as well. I know the example of the educational system fairly well, and that's just as topsy-turvey. They're hiring German educational experts left and right to get some real top-flight universities producing some really decent engineers, doctors, artists of all types, etc. but meanwhile have an almost vestigial public education system that leaves them with 45% urban literacy rates, ~20% rural European literacy rates, and ~.5% rural Asian literacy rates. If it helps you might think of how India has pushed its development forward in the last 30 years. They've attempted a similar top-down approach, while the bottom-up approach the Chinese used looks a lot more like what the Soviets did post-Revolution. Back to the specifics of 19th century officer advisors, think of them more in terms of people who leave US military service today and then go to work for PMCs. Only back then people were kinda-sorta OK with you keeping your old uniform and continuing to represent yourself as an American or German (or whatever) Captain or Admiral or Colonel or whatever, just one without an active commission back home.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
From what I understand the total Mongol conquest of Europe was unlikely due to geography, but had Ogedei not hit the drink so hard and lived longer am I right in thinking that even an unsuccessful invasion of Germany and Italy by Subotai would have catastrophically altered Europe as a whole? There's a lot of legend about how the Battle of Tours preserved Christian Europe but the sudden death of Ogedei seems to have given Europe way more of a lucky break.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Doesn't the ability for the land to bear a large cavalry army drop as you get into Germany and the rate of fortifications on key terrain features rise very sharply?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Couldn't you say the same about eastern and southern China?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Couldn't you say the same about eastern and southern China? Did they have the same access to good siege engineers that it took to deal with those regions when they'd have been going after Europe in this hypothetical?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Did they have the same access to good siege engineers that it took to deal with those regions when they'd have been going after Europe in this hypothetical? Probably, didn't they drag cannon all the way to Ain Jalut? Might have been a pain to siege down all those European castles, but no more so than breaking through into China proper. Lower rewards though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
A good bit happened in the twenty years between Ain Jalut and Ogedai dying though, if I remember the chronology at all right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
sullat posted:Probably, didn't they drag cannon all the way to Ain Jalut? Might have been a pain to siege down all those European castles, but no more so than breaking through into China proper. Lower rewards though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:Also, I've heard arguments that by the time they were this deep in Europe, the (not-all-that-Mongol) Mongol army would have absorbed plenty of Europeans from newly conquered/subject lands (Hungarians, Poles, Russians etc..) that would have have experience dealing with fortifications and European local conditions. The arguments I've seen concentrate on the role of the castles covering all sorts of important passes and the lack of fodder to support a Mongol army meaning that a lot of their advantages would be stripped away and they'd be pretty much left with a european style army in order to be able to feed their force and relatively mediocre siegecraft (the scale of fortification ramps significantly going from eastern to central europe although Bela later built a ton of new stone castles, which helped considerably against Nogai). And despite that lighter fortification, there was a lot in Hungary that was yet to be taken. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Sep 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
China-related question, which are the good military histories covering the period 1937-1945?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Don't supply lines matter as well. Sure they took a lot of what they needed from nearby but you can only take everything a village has once. To my uneducated eyes china seems a lot closer to either friendly places, actual homelands or places very similar to homelands that itd seem a lot easier to supply a force that has to siege its way across a heavily fortified area than moving into central europe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:Don't supply lines matter as well. Sure they took a lot of what they needed from nearby but you can only take everything a village has once. To my uneducated eyes china seems a lot closer to either friendly places, actual homelands or places very similar to homelands that itd seem a lot easier to supply a force that has to siege its way across a heavily fortified area than moving into central Europe. By this point the Mongols had already conquered areas far, far away from areas considered their 'Core', especially Iran and Russia, and would go on to bring down the Sung despite being in areas more heavily fortified and in terrain and climatic conditions that did not seem at all conductive towards the Mongol ways of war. I remember that this debate about the Mongols ability to conquer Europe came up in the previous thread and Obdicut made a pretty good argument that Europe's supposed natural advantages probably didn't actually count for much against the Mongol onslaught. First the Mongols successfully conquered areas extremely heavily fortified and mountainous, Particularly in China and Iran, and were known to be world class besiegers when they gained access to Chinese engineers and technology. Related to that they had also shown to be adaptable and disciplined in ways nobody, least of all the Europeans, could match up against, they were perfectly able to change tactics as the situation needed, after all, nomadic people traditionally had trouble taking cities in war by and large, but the Mongols were able to overcome this usual weakness with a combo of learning from settled peoples and extreme brutality. Europe was backward and divided, any individual European state had far less manpower and resources to call on than their counterparts in China and Iran, which the Mongols could have quickly taken advantage of. Finally there's the niggling fact that every European army that actually went up against the Mongols got loving annihilated in campaigns conducted with speed and ingenuity no one could have imagined. The Mongols also had Subutai who was pretty hot poo poo and were at the peak of their military prowess so we should probably be glad Ogedei couldn't hold his liquor. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 12:16 on Sep 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
To not re-iterate the arguments (personally I think the kicker is the lack of European cohesion, a significant proportion of the Europeans would probably see the mongol invasion as an opportunity to kick old enemies while they are down, or might willingly sign up as allies), going back to the original question, yeah, even if the Mongols can't take all the fortified towns, there's plenty that is unfortified for the Mongols to rape and pillage through if they aren't concerned about controlling territory. Think something like Edward III's Chevauchée raiding campaign in France. A scorched earth campaign might stop them, but the European states were weak and it would be, in my opinion, hard to get all the lords and other landowners to agree to that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:By this point the Mongols had already conquered areas far, far away from areas considered their 'Core', especially Iran and Russia, and would go on to bring down the Sung despite being in areas more heavily fortified and in terrain and climatic conditions that did not seem at all conductive towards the Mongol ways of war. Actually I'm positively sure it was a pretty loving heated argument between someone and I think Evan Shenck (sp?) and that when all was said and done, popular opinion leaned towards favoring the Europeans. Somebody got loving trounced though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Actually I'm positively sure it was a pretty loving heated argument between someone and I think Evan Shenck (sp?) and that when all was said and done, popular opinion leaned towards favoring the Europeans. Somebody got loving trounced though. Popular opinion? What, was there a poll or something taken? Nobody got trounced, it was a back and forth with good points on either side but, as you can see, I lean more in favor of the idea that the Mongols would have been bad news as they were most other places.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 12:50
|
|