|
Azran posted:
quote:I think you also mentioned some medieval cases sometime ago, where priests checking the bodies left in the aftermath of a battle discovered that some of the dead were in fact women.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Somehow I don't think sex ed was taught in detail those days. Any irregularities could be explained by confirmation bias.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
I can't remember her exact name, but one of my favourite ladies of war was fighting for Frederick The Greats Prussian Army for several years, she did such a pretty awesome job I think made proper officer rank before she was dicovered. Surprisingly for the Prussian Army, they were pretty cool with it and let her keep her pension and homours and all that after her ah, retirement.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Azran posted:
I doubt there'd be the involvement of priests (or the equivalent of "local authorities relating to people loving" if not priests) watching, but in the 17th C, I wouldn't be surprised if the wife knew and didn't want to be strung up or raped or whatever they did with people they saw as deviant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Incidentally, it was common to strip the dead really quickly. Gustavus Adolphus was naked when he was found, and the battle was still going on. And Wallenstein was stripped right after he was killed; they rolled him up in a carpet, dragged him down the stairs by his heels, and set him in the courtyard next to his unindicted co-conspirators in a row of naked dead. Edit: Of course, if I had just killed one of the most famous people in Europe I'd want souvenirs too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
There's also Franziska Scanagatta, who apparently never got caught. Ages ago, I was researching women who served in disguise in the American Civil War, and one thing I seem to remember coming up a lot in the articles I came across was that it was way easier for them to remain undiscovered that you'd think just because none of the men around them expected to find a woman in the ranks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Incidentally, it was common to strip the dead really quickly. Gustavus Adolphus was naked when he was found, and the battle was still going on. And Wallenstein was stripped right after he was killed; they rolled him up in a carpet, dragged him down the stairs by his heels, and set him in the courtyard next to his unindicted co-conspirators in a row of naked dead. On the battlefield I imagine it was just "gently caress it, that guy won't need his powder/shot/boots etc."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:On the battlefield I imagine it was just "gently caress it, that guy won't need his powder/shot/boots etc." Edit: Of course, you can get impatient and not wait until the dude's dead, which nearly happened to Pappenheim. Actually, there's nothing in that account that tells me whether or not the Walloon knew Pappenheim wasn't doomed when he spoke to him. Most people, when their head is split open, kind of die. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I can't remember her exact name, but one of my favourite ladies of war was fighting for Frederick The Greats Prussian Army for several years, she did such a pretty awesome job I think made proper officer rank before she was dicovered. Isn't there several ladies who served in the Royal Navy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
100 Years Ago The BEF gets stuck into the enemy again, attacking together with the French 10th Army towards La Bassee, and independently towards Armentieres. The Germans only have advance guards to meet the push, and retire smartly to find their mates. They've captured the critical railway junction at Lille; it is imperative to get into a position where Lille can be taken back. Meanwhile, 7th Division has seen the Belgian army safely back to its line of last resort. They receive new orders on where to establish themselves to best co-operate with the Belgians, and they set off marching for a large town, the name of which defeats all who would attempt to pronounce it. Now, here's something I turned up recently that y'all might find of interest. The Daily Telegraph is republishing its archives on its website day-by-day; and the Spectator (a weekly newsmagazine and conservative opinion journal) has its complete archive available for free. In the early going, both are mostly stuffed full of what you'd expect from Victorian/Edwardian organs - inspirational tales of individual derring-do (my favourite is the Frenchman who got wounded 97 times, but refused medical attention and kept killing the Boche), of Germans repulsed at every turn, of spurious victories from the Eastern Front invented out of whole cloth (apparently the Russians won at Tannenberg, who knew?), and confident predictions of victory right around the corner, just as soon as Our Boys can get properly to grips with the villainous Hun. And then there's this extract from the October 10th edition of the Spectator, in their "News of the Week" leader. In two paragraphs (I've split it into four for easier reading), it identifies the situation that will soon be present on the Western Front, explains the difficulties of waging war under such conditions, and takes a punt at what might be needed to achieve victories and successes. quote:The two opposing armies, the greater part of them strongly entrenched, face each other at close quarters in a line drawn from Switzerland to the North Sea—a line not straight, but bending north very nearly at right angles at Noyon, and then heading fairly straight for Dunkerque, upon which fortress port the Allies' extreme left wing will very soon rest. Now will come the time for a military genius, for a commander who is able to take into his mind a vast series of facts and arrange and co-ordinate them in such a way that he will be able to defeat his enemy. I started trying to bold particularly relevant parts, but soon ended up highlighting the whole thing. The only things I could change to reflect the actual situation are substituting "Dixmude" for "Dunkirk" and "months" (or "years", according to taste) for "weeks". I'd love to know who wrote it, it's a rare outbreak of insight in a latrine of enforced jollity. (The leader then returns to a more familiar theme, that of dutifully pretending that whatever unmitigated disaster just happened, such as the fall of Antwerp, it's actually a good thing and is totally going to work out to our advantage.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Here are some women who served in WW1 as combatants: Princess Shakhovskaya - First female military pilot (flew a number of recon missions) Flora Sandes - Milunka Savić - Most decorated female combatant in the history of warfare, veteran of 2 Balkan Wars and World War 1. Aleksandra Kurdasheva - Colonel, Commander of the Sixth Ural Cossack Regiment Ecaterina Teodoroiu - Second Lieutenant, originally a nurse, she joined the Romanian army after the death of her brother And, oh, of course, all the women who served in Women's Battalions of Death in Russia. my dad fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:40
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Isn't there several ladies who served in the Royal Navy? I think so, along with two very famous lady pirates. With the pirates I can understand, but with the Royal Navy and in general with cramped 17th and 18th century style conditions it is surprisingly how long some of them can last if they even did get caught. Then again, people didn't really bother taking off the handful of clothing they owned to bathe much so...
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
.
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Extra History is interesting, but it's also the definition of Great Man History. And it also realllllly plays up the "Good men tried for peace! Stop the madness!" angle waaaay too much. Well if you want to balance that out, you can try some Crash Course with it. John Green is so not-great-man-history that he left Napoleon out of his world history series.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
But. But the Napoleonic Wars!
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
my dad posted:Flora Sandes - Her memoir An English Woman-Sergeant in the Serbian Army is on archive.org! Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Her memoir An English Woman-Sergeant in the Serbian Army is on archive.org! Link fix: https://archive.org/details/englishwomanserg00sanduoft my dad fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Why would you need to do that? It's completely correct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Why would you need to do that? It's completely correct. You lef something ou a the end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Wasn't there some Roman writing on Gallic/Celtic/Germanic women in combat?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:48
|
|
(and then 
) if the men start running away from the front.
|
In Henry V, an English lieutenant captures a French soldier and plans to kill him until the soldier promises to pay him 200 crowns for his freedom. How did they enforce that kind of thing? Would the enemy commanders pay all the ransoms after a battle, or would the captured soldiers need to write home for the money?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:In Henry V, an English lieutenant captures a French soldier and plans to kill him until the soldier promises to pay him 200 crowns for his freedom. How did they enforce that kind of thing? Would the enemy commanders pay all the ransoms after a battle, or would the captured soldiers need to write home for the money? It'd be your own money, or your family's. You'd be laughingstock for suggesting your liege pay your ransom, any self-respecting French nobleman lived by his own means. Ransoms would be enforced by taking the ransomee prisoner. I don't know what happens in Henry V, but you wouldn't let then trundle home. In reality, most of the French prisoners at Agincourt were murdered shortly after the battle, despite promises of ransom money. That order came from good king Henry himself. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
In some cases noblemen simply promised on their honor to come back with ransom money, I know that was the case after Teutonic Order's guests surrendered at Grunwald. I think Teutonic Order fronted their ransoms too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
Did feudal Bishoprics have knights serving under them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:In Henry V, an English lieutenant captures a French soldier and plans to kill him until the soldier promises to pay him 200 crowns for his freedom. How did they enforce that kind of thing? Would the enemy commanders pay all the ransoms after a battle, or would the captured soldiers need to write home for the money? This practice varies by place in the social order; Francis I's ransom was heavy diplomatic concessions to Charles V. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_I_of_France#Military_action Edit: The way the dudes on the ground talk about Francis I's capture is neat; there's a Landsknecht song that states that "Emperor Francis of France fell into von Frundsberg's hands" at the Battle of Pavia, while one of the dudes who actually captured him ends up being called "the victor of Pavia." The part where this whole thing is at the behest of some head of state, vague and far-off, fades into the background. And why shouldn't it? We just captured a loving emperor, ¡hot drat! HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I vaguely remember translating some dispatch from the Boudica war where some Roman commander was complaining that the locals were uncivilised and the woman and children were shivving the gently caress out of his guys instead of the usual casual rape/murder/whatever his Legionaires were expecting. Wait, so just like some kid rolls up to Gnaeus Douchius Maximus of Legio II Ursus and just stabs that motherfuck in the balls?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Wait, so just like some kid rolls up to Gnaeus Douchius Maximus of Legio II Ursus and just stabs that motherfuck in the balls? While Stultus Maximus discovers that raping the kid's mother is challenging when you have been disemboweled by her obsidian carving knife, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:It'd be your own money, or your family's. You'd be laughingstock for suggesting your liege pay your ransom, any self-respecting French nobleman lived by his own means. The Face of Battle is well regarded but pretty old (I think?) but it's been one of my only real contact points for srs bizznizz milhist, and if I remember right there's a section in there discussing why that order came down and who followed it. Henry was spooked by a raid on his supplies (by the local noblity who just happened to have two armies park on his land) and was worried that all these 'surrendered' dudes were, well, hanging out in a battlefield where there were a lot of weapons lying around. The book mentioned that the English men at arms were reluctant to make with the killing (since the rules of ransom would protect them if the tables ever turned) but that the longbowmen, who would be hosed if they ever got captured, were more willing to do what needed to be done. The author also proposed that the French attack concentraded on the English men at arms not because fighting leaders wasn't honorable, but because it wasn't profitable. (End "I read a book 10 years ago" disclaimer) The ransom politics of Greek warfare is pretty interesting as well. For the dead there was actually a very involved culture of recovering the bodies and erecting triumphs, so much so that Athens once had generals executed for winning a battle, but spending too much time pursuin the enemy and not doing enough to recover the dead (it was a naval battle so there's sort of a time limit when it comes to the damaged ships.) As far as the living go there was much less protocol. Defeated sides either retreated in good order, were routed, or were massacred. If you were captured you generally were sold into slavery but mass surrenders and negotiations over their fate like happens pretty rarely. Of course, sometimes a significant percentage of the adult male spartan citizenry decide to chill on an island with the Athenian navy near by and the whole war comes to a screeching halt as Sparta rolls over and begs for mercy, so there is that. The protocols for sieges were also less developed than in, say, Hegel's day. Advanced negotiation boiled down to the Melian Dialogue option (surrender now or we'll kill every male below the age of 45 and sell everyone else into slavery) but while that did result in some quick capitulations it turned what sieges do occur into pretty personal, fight to the last bloody citizen affairs. (In undergrad I had a foreign affairs major come up to me and explain how the Melian Dialogue formed the foundation of the realist school of foreign policy and how everyone had to either be Athens or you would be the Melians and how the world would run so much smoother if the Melians of the world just rolled over and saved everyone the trouble of genociding them. I really hope that was just them being a sophomore and that he was misunderstanding his own field as badly as he was misunderstanding Thucy.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
the JJ posted:(In undergrad I had a foreign affairs major come up to me and explain how the Melian Dialogue formed the foundation of the realist school of foreign policy and how everyone had to either be Athens or you would be the Melians and how the world would run so much smoother if the Melians of the world just rolled over and saved everyone the trouble of genociding them. I really hope that was just them being a sophomore and that he was misunderstanding his own field as badly as he was misunderstanding Thucy.) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Wait, so just like some kid rolls up to Gnaeus Douchius Maximus of Legio II Ursus and just stabs that motherfuck in the balls? That said, it could just have been a "they totally started it" justification for killing the gently caress out of the Iceni and Trinovantes that a dude was making up so as to prevent Caesar being annoyed at him too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:He's a sophomore and is oversimplifying the Realist position/s. Even 17th century heads of state are concerned with international custom and the court of public opinion. You can believe, as I do, that international affairs are an amoral field while still thinking that genocide is a really bad idea. Sure, pragmatism is a thing, but that specific case was "the Athenians make stupidly outrageous demands backed by threats that they could carry out but only at considerable cost. This would have worked had they been dealing with rational actor motivated in they way they were motivated but they were dealing with bone headed colonists from Sparta so of course they took the gently caress-you spite option. And thus the Athenians ended up besieging and blockading some shithole flyspeck island with no strategic value for a couple of years and then got nothing out of the deal. All this in a war they ended up losing in part because they spent as much time keeping their "allies" in line as they did actually fighting the Spartans. The "gently caress you I've got a big stick" option is a very important part of diplomacy and foreign policy but if that's the lesson you're getting from that incident is that the Athenians played it well you need to step back and look at which of those two sides ultimately won the war. Saying "the Melians should have given in and so Athens wouldn't have had to waste all those resources" somewhat misses the point that the Melians didn't give in and so the Athenians had to waste all those resources.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
On a related note to ransom, how common was the concept of parole? It seems bizarre in the modern context that you'd just let a bunch of guys go in exchange for a promise not to take up arms against them again, but I'm guessing early modern states didn't really have any means to take care of these guys if they didn't release them? Was the promise not to take up arms again taken seriously by everyone?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:16
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:On a related note to ransom, how common was the concept of parole? It seems bizarre in the modern context that you'd just let a bunch of guys go in exchange for a promise not to take up arms against them again, but I'm guessing early modern states didn't really have any means to take care of these guys if they didn't release them? Was the promise not to take up arms again taken seriously by everyone? Edit: It's more efficient to enlist them, depriving your enemies of soldiers at the same time as you increase your own numbers. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
The idea of parole started to die off in the ACW, where guys who had been paroled kept on getting captured over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:The idea of parole started to die off in the ACW, where guys who had been paroled kept on getting captured over and over again. Well, it's also that the South refused to parole captured black soldiers and in they only stopped murdering black POWs when Lincoln threatened to start doing the same to Southern prisoners. Patrick Spens fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
What are some good books to read on the Napoleonic Wars? Is there a Napoleonic equivalent to Wilson? How did my life lead me to a place where I know more about the 30YW than the Napoleonic Wars?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Well, it's also that the South refused to parole captured black soldier's and in they only stopped murdering black POWs when Lincoln threatened to start doing them same to Southern prisoners. Heritage, not hate :cryingJeffersonflag:. Seriously though, holy gently caress that is terrible on so many levels  . Are there hard numbers for how many black POWs were murdered, just so I have something else to bring up when people say that the CSA wasn't racist*?*Other than the constitution of the CSA and the slaves. EDIT: I just realized I pretty much said the same thing three times. Don Gato fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:How did my life lead me to a place where I know more about the 30YW than the Napoleonic Wars?  My posting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Most of them they didn't even bother to accept the surrenderquote:Conflicting reports of what happened next, from 4:00PM to dusk, led to controversy. Union and Confederate sources claimed that even though the Union troops surrendered, Forrest's men massacred them in cold blood. Surviving members of the garrison said that most of their men surrendered and threw down their arms, only to be shot or bayoneted by the attackers, who repeatedly shouted, "No quarter! No quarter!"[10] The Joint Committee On the Conduct of the War immediately investigated the incident and concluded that the Confederates shot most of the garrison after it had surrendered. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
When did that get bought?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:07
|
|
