|
Could we have this thread just for history discussion and keep modern day politics in Coupons & Deals and FYAD?
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
100 Years Ago General Joffre fires off some slightly snitty letters to his subordinates criticising how their blokes have been digging trenches. Herbert Sulzbach gets appointed to a cushy HQ job, but ends up having to go closer to the line to do it. Kenneth Best is patronising about the local religious traditions, and the paper is just patronising in general. Meanwhile, the war's bleeding into women's fashion, with Harrods' latest line of military-inspired tailoring. Disinterested posted:You already answered your own question. The low countries have been dragging Britain into messy continental entanglements for a long time. It was already traditional by 1914. You know, everyone goes straight to the treaty with Belgium, but there's also the arrangments with France to consider. A major part of the Entente was the arrangement that the French Navy would concentrate in the Mediterranean, and the Royal Navy would concentrate in the North Sea, to defend the alliance from all possible angles of attack. If you try to stay out of the war, you now have two options and both of them are bad. Either you just let the High Seas Fleet wander all through the Channel as they please (and keeping them out is kind of what the Grand Fleet is for) and look like the worst kind of perfidious Albion, or you try somehow to enforce a "No Boches in the water" edict as the price for staying neutral, which would have been kind of like trying to do a fire-eating routine in a gunpowder store, and only made them look like a pound shop knockoff perfidious Albion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Also when the Germans run through the Frogs and take their colonies you're going to be pretty sad. I just meant that there is a strong history of the Low Countries being a bridge to British involvement in the continent consistently throughout Modern and Early modern European history.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:https://makersley.com/montreuil/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/15-01-28-Harrods-Militaire-135x300.png
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What does militarily inspired fashion for women look like, in this period? I hope it's jodhpurs and festooned shakos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Of course that gets some love in here, the one tall flat advert that can't be easily print-scrned    It's quite chic! I'm pretty much whatever the opposite of a fashionista is, but I'm liking this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:50
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I hope it's jodhpurs and festooned shakos. The Crimean War killed all that off. Stupid Crimea.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:On a large scale, Britain's foreign policy for the last century or so has been to prevent any one continental European power from ever gaining hegemony over Europe. Germany, an amalgamation of a bunch of smaller Germanic states, was suddenly a powerhouse and on the up-and-up. Britain wanted to keep some kind of balance of power going between France and Germany. And beyond that, Britain had a major case of "No one but us is allowed to have a powerful navy." They saw Germany's attempt to build a serious worldwide navy to secure and defend their empire as an innate, existential threat to Britain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Of course that gets some love in here, the one tall flat advert that can't be easily print-scrned I want someone to do a study of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:The Crimean War killed all that off. What won't Crimea ruin?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I want someone to do a study of this. Anyone else who feels like this, might I direct you to the Daily Telegraph's regular Saturday feature "A Page for Women", custodian Mrs Eric Pritchard?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:And beyond that, Britain had a major case of "No one but us is allowed to have a powerful navy." They saw Germany's attempt to build a serious worldwide navy to secure and defend their empire as an innate, existential threat to Britain. Which is exactly what it was. It's not paranoia if Tirpitz and Co. really are out to get you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Which is exactly what it was. The funny part: Wilhelm and Tirpitz envisioned being Britain's ally, a partner and equal to rule the world with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
I remember seeing some of these around the library. Go Mean Green!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:How the gently caress do you even blame Obama for that? Some of the groups involved in Bush's Sunni Awakening, who drove out the original AQ in Iraq, have probably gone over to ISIS as well. Not all, most are probably neutral, but this is a constantly shifting web of alliances dominated by some top dogs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The funny part: Wilhelm and Tirpitz envisioned being Britain's ally, a partner and equal to rule the world with. Yeah, Wilhelm in particular really did think that they needed the navy before Britain would respect them, but once they did they could just be partners in crime, happily ruling the world forever. This was particularly stupid on his part. In addition to all the reasons everyone else has said, the British parliament was pretty happy to get everything focused on a European war, because it provided a handy distraction from a serious crisis that was brewing over the Irish Question. The liberals were willing to let the Irish have Home Rule in exchange for propping them up in Parliament, they had pushed aside the opposition from the House of Lords to do so, but there was still serious opposition from within the ranks of the fairly conservative military. Had the July Crisis been resolved neatly somehow, it seems likely that some crazy poo poo would have gone down in Britain instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:39
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
On the theme of disguising things as other things from a few pages back, check out this "Sherman". The "M10" Panthers were better than this, but not by much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Thanks! It's interesting how different far-flung cultures have created an untouchable caste.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:They get a salary. Was tipping customary? Were the possessions of executed soldiers dealt with differently than any other dead soldier?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Was tipping customary?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
 That hat. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Tipping the executioner would be a pretty american thing to do I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
HEY GAL, can you please recommend a primary source or two on the relative pay and level of training of pikemen and musketeers? Preferably in English, I know some German but not the 17th century kind. I'm having that problem of telling a history professor "I know someone on the Internet who disagrees with you."
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah, Wilhelm in particular really did think that they needed the navy before Britain would respect them, but once they did they could just be partners in crime, happily ruling the world forever. This was particularly stupid on his part. Well, the US kinda pulled it off, but that was after Britain's glory days ended.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Chamale posted:HEY GAL, can you please recommend a primary source or two on the relative pay and level of training of pikemen and musketeers? Preferably in English, I know some German but not the 17th century kind. I'm having that problem of telling a history professor "I know someone on the Internet who disagrees with you." https://archive.org/details/cromwellsarmyhis00firtuoft What's the dude's issue? (If he's talking about the 1500s and Spain and he says arquebusieros make more, he's correct since it was the hot new technology at the time and those guys would be elite specialists. But I bet he isn't.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:This is a secondary source but it has primary sources in it, it's available for free legally, and everything is English. Thanks for the link. He was talking about the 15th century Ottomans, saying the guns were only for elite troops and that pikes were seen as weapons for under-trained conscripts. I commented that things were very different in the Thirty Years' War, and he said he didn't know whether or not that was the case. So it looks like the newness of gun technology was a big factor at first, then later it was pikemen getting more pay because they had to do drills to stay in good formation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Thanks for the link. He was talking about the 15th century Ottomans, saying the guns were only for elite troops and that pikes were seen as weapons for under-trained conscripts. I commented that things were very different in the Thirty Years' War, and he said he didn't know whether or not that was the case. So it looks like the newness of gun technology was a big factor at first, then later it was pikemen getting more pay because they had to do drills to stay in good formation. And they don't make more because they have to drill, everyone has to work at this. They make more because it's a more honorable role. Framing it in terms of "what kind of work/how much work do you do" is missing the point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:
 really. It's a Tam o'Shanter hat, meaning the dude is probably from one of the Highlander units.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Nah, it's 'cause the Ottomans hate staff weapons for some reason. That's very interesting, thank you. Why is it considered more honourable to use the pike? I hope I'm not annoying you with all these questions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:On the theme of disguising things as other things from a few pages back, check out this "Sherman". Clearly it's a Cargo Cult-esque attempt to make their vehicle more reliable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Well, the US kinda pulled it off, but that was after Britain's glory days ended. Exactly. If Britain had been a genuine equal in economic/military/etc terms after World War 2 instead of clearly broke and second-string, things would have gone differently. Churchill definitely wasn't at all keen on the US's stance against colonialism and the Empire, for instance, but after the Suez crisis it was clear that the UK couldn't act against the US's wishes when it came to anything major.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:More like I suppose. But it's still Canadian Highlander regiments (there's 4 or 5 of them).
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Chamale posted:That's very interesting, thank you. Why is it considered more honourable to use the pike? I hope I'm not annoying you with all these questions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I think the original reason was that it's older--not only that the Swiss invented this fighting style in the present day but that it stretches all the way back to antiquity. Phillip of Macedon is supposed to have invented them, for heaven's sake. After that, I think the high esteem they were held in and the results of that esteem fed into each other--the Fendrich marches among the pikes because they're honorable and they're honorable because the flag is there; if a nobleman wants to become a common soldier he picks pike and they're more honorable because nobles are there, etc etc. When someone dies in camp they carry him away on pikes, when you're trying to ford a river with an important figure you carry him across on pikes, and a Rotte of pikemen can drive their pikes into the ground and use them as the central supports for a little withy shelter, so they also sleep beneath pikes. I know what my next Mount and Blade build is going to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:On the theme of disguising things as other things from a few pages back, check out this "Sherman". What's the point of this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:What's the point of this? Deception or anti-tank training? Or just some Panzergrenadiers having too much time and way too much papier-mache at hand...
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Nah, it's 'cause the Ottomans hate staff weapons for some reason. The Ottomans had one Janissary Orta (forgot which one) dedicated polearms and these were considered a poo poo assignment by contemporaries. You can read about them going on about the skill with the scimitar or bow all day, but polearms are somewhat the place that the dudes get put in that are considered too stupid for an office job or incapable of wielding a "real" weapon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:The Ottomans had one Janissary Orta (forgot which one) dedicated polearms and these were considered a poo poo assignment by contemporaries. You can read about them going on about the skill with the scimitar or bow all day, but polearms are somewhat the place that the dudes get put in that are considered incapable of wielding a "real" weapon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:What's the point of this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:27
|
|
