|
"the middle class" lol @ that even existing as a concept in those days
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
100 Years Ago I'm quite proud of this line, so you're getting it here in full. Sir Ian Hamilton knows that he doesn’t want to fight, but by Jingo if they do, he has no shells, he has no men, and he has no money, too. In that light it seems indeed that while they’re Britons true, the Russians shall not have Constantinople. But orders are orders. So we have the Second Battle of Krithia, and I've got just enough breathing room to start bringing some more lovely oral accounts in. (Just guess what happens.) Meanwhile, the Gorlice-Tarnow Offensive continues unabated, and after a scant 48 hours of rest, the Patricias are back in the new line near Hooge, watching the German waves roll up the beach towards them. Also, round 1 of Grey Hunter's WW1 LP has now finished! The observer thread should be your destination for signups. (It also has the first half of an ersatz 100 Years Ago post for the battle...)
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:port athur: The blue and white Russian Navy Ensign seen here was also the basis for the flag of Finland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Finland#History
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 13:04
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:"the middle class" lol @ that even existing as a concept in those days at best it's 'moneygrubbing cityfolk'
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:"the middle class" lol @ that even existing as a concept in those days If it was used for the original bougies, then yes, it existed as a concept. edit: Disinterested posted:at best it's 'moneygrubbing cityfolk'
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Not identical at all. The Russian shako for example is quite different from the French one. Napoleonics: It's always gotta come down to the hats
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:
Outside of the magnificent facial hair, everyone in this picture is just so excited to be doing some ramming. (They missed, the first time at least.) For those who may be curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lissa_(1866) Immanentized fucked around with this message at 14:08 on May 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 13:54
|
|
Immanentized posted:Outside of the magnificent facial hair, everyone in this picture is just so excited to be doing some ramming. Although in military terms it was a stupid slapfight, it was also extremely 
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
Immanentized posted:Outside of the magnificent facial hair, everyone in this picture is just so excited to be doing some ramming. (They missed, the first time at least.) "It was the first major sea battle between ironclads and one of the last to involve deliberate ramming." Deliberate ramming was used many times in WWII, especially against subs.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:"It was the first major sea battle between ironclads and one of the last to involve deliberate ramming." Yes, but it's kind of hard to call a destroyer ramming a u-boat a "major sea battle." Jesenjin posted:Hey guys. I am actively reading the old thread, and I find ti super fascinated as an archaeologist with interest for military history. (stuck on page 49 out of 372) I can't give you a solid recommendation, but I will say that you are limiting yourself terribly by demanding online access. Most good historical literature is only ever published on physical media.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:20
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I can't give you a solid recommendation, but I will say that you are limiting yourself terribly by demanding online access. Most good historical literature is only ever published on physical media. He can probably find good academic papers though, which is often a good place to start anyway.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yes, but it's kind of hard to call a destroyer ramming a u-boat a "major sea battle." Ah, good point. By the way, what was the last major sea battle where ramming was used?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yes, but it's kind of hard to call a destroyer ramming a u-boat a "major sea battle."  (I'm not being serious, btw)
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:He can probably find good academic papers though, which is often a good place to start anyway. I'd actually disagree that articles are a good place to start. They are almost always on much, much more narrowly defined subjects and are frequently addressing relatively minor issues. If someone is just learning about a subject you want to start out broad, with a general history and work your way down to the more fiddly stuff. Articles are where you go when you already know the field and are looking to find out what the absolute bleeding edge of the scholarship is. For a synthetic overview of a subject or even just a solid take on a major issue in a field you really need to go to the monographs.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Ah, good point. gently caress, I'm finding myself sitting here wondering when the last major sea battle was, period? I don't think any of the bullshit naval actions from Vietnam really count, and there weren't really any major fleet-on-fleet throwdowns in the Falklands. Did Iran and Iraq ever square off navally? I'm pretty sure Korea didn't involve any ship-on-ship combat of any real size or scale. Might it actually be WW2?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:30
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:What if your hat fell off? You'd pick that fucker back up and put it on unless you were mortally wounded or dying, because the last thing you need is a beating/telling off from a NCO or officer over regulations*. Plus losing that thing means even more deductions to your already petty wages. Exceptions of course being a fast as hell retreat to friendly territory the state will pay for that go go go. Honestly, It is a lot easier than you think to tell whom is whom in the Napoleonic Wars even at low levels amongst the troops. Remember in these times especially in countries like Russia unless you lived in a costal city or region coming across a foreigner was a bit of a novelty. Battles and even skirmish actions were pretty crowded loud affairs most of the time everyone was clustered around their dudes even when advancing forward. Not saying it happened mind you, friendly fire and confusion between soldiers will always happen. It was usually cases of shooting at allies who had the same uniform colour as the enemy though. I imagine many Dutch or serving Swiss soldier fighting for Napoleon was never happy when that occured. That big angry dude cussing at you in a foreign language? either an enemy or hilariously a foreign officer. Better shoot only to wound to be sure or over his fantastic hat. Also keep in mind uniforms in this era weren't exactly uniform, either in design or otherwise. Just because everyone in a print, plate or picture looks all fancy pants with their parade gear doesn't mean that on campaign they look like they raided a friendly depot on the way there. If the weather sucks too, they'd wear a greatcoat over their uniform. And speaking of uniforms, there would be quite noticeable varients as well. You can clearly tell the difference between an Old Guard Grenadier and Line Grenadier of Napoleon soldiers or a Landwehr conscript to a Prussian Life Guard. They'd look the opposite, scruffy as gently caress uniform dye faded and no doubt wearing some dead enemy britches and boots. The hat amusingly would be the easiest identifier with the huge metal plates and the cocades now. *Depending on army and situation of course, some armies and officers were anal as hell over this whilst others clearly gave no fucks. SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 14:43 on May 6, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I can't give you a solid recommendation, but I will say that you are limiting yourself terribly by demanding online access. Most good historical literature is only ever published on physical media. Well even a good recommendation will be nice. But I will still have problem with getting it shipped to where I am, ie. Eastern Europe.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:gently caress, I'm finding myself sitting here wondering when the last major sea battle was, period? I don't think any of the bullshit naval actions from Vietnam really count, and there weren't really any major fleet-on-fleet throwdowns in the Falklands. The Yom Kippur war had some naval combat going on, like the Battle of Latakia.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
This page goes into a little more detail about Napoleonic uniforms than I can properly be spergy about.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:gently caress, I'm finding myself sitting here wondering when the last major sea battle was, period? I don't think any of the bullshit naval actions from Vietnam really count, and there weren't really any major fleet-on-fleet throwdowns in the Falklands. Can you count the submarine shenanigans of the cold war as a 'major sea battle'? If not then I think the closest you get is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis Murgos fucked around with this message at 14:48 on May 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:43
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I'd actually disagree that articles are a good place to start. They are almost always on much, much more narrowly defined subjects and are frequently addressing relatively minor issues. If someone is just learning about a subject you want to start out broad, with a general history and work your way down to the more fiddly stuff. Eh, depends on how narrowly defined your area of inquiry is, as you say. On certain historical questions - even fairly important ones - there is magisterial treatment in essays and papers and only passing mentions in large monographs, or else mediocre treatment. For example - this: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2638656 is better on Robert Peel than the monographs tbh. You can get to grips with the historiography of Peel and get the essential thing about him from that paper. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 15:04 on May 6, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:If the weather sucks too, they'd wear a greatcoat over their uniform. And speaking of uniforms, there would be quite noticeable varients as well. You can clearly tell the difference between an Old Guard Grenadier and Line Grenadier of Napoleon soldiers or a Landwehr conscript to a Prussian Life Guard. I'm kinda curious, did Napoleonic armies ever run a uniform recognition program so that your average soldier would know who not to shoot if not part of their own army? Sort of like the WW2 "This man is your FRIEND - he fights for LIBERTY" stuff?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:53
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Napoleonics: It's always gotta come down to the hats It truly was the haberdashers wet dream conflict.  Seriously, these are just some of the varients that French Fusilier soldiers and officers wore through the conflict. Also, bonus image.  Tomn posted:I'm kinda curious, did Napoleonic armies ever run a uniform recognition program so that your average soldier would know who not to shoot if not part of their own army? Sort of like the WW2 "This man is your FRIEND - he fights for LIBERTY" stuff? I think on a lower level they'd at least be briefed about their allies/foreign regiments in the field by their superiors and they had to pass the word down to the fighting man. If you were a higher level guy, I'd imagine you'd learn quite quickly from parades and observation duty with the rest of the command staff. Oh I imagine there would be lots of parades. I need to dig out a source too on the obscene amount of money officers also spent to get their uniforms exclusively tailored from the 19th century Hugo Bosses of their land. SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 15:00 on May 6, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:gently caress, I'm finding myself sitting here wondering when the last major sea battle was, period? I don't think any of the bullshit naval actions from Vietnam really count, and there weren't really any major fleet-on-fleet throwdowns in the Falklands. Iran and Iraq fought the "Tanker War". There was also the the Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971. Especially the Operation Trident. I was aware that India and Pakistan have fought many wars with each other, but I hadn't read before about these naval actions. Of course, compared to WWII, I wouldn't call them major actions.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
Immanentized posted:Outside of the magnificent facial hair, everyone in this picture is just so excited to be doing some ramming. (They missed, the first time at least.) holy  quote:The Italian gunners got a full broadside off at point blank range, but while they had remembered the gunpowder, in the excitement they had forgotten to load the shot.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
How often were flaming arrows used in ancient/medieval warfare? You see them all the time in movies but Inalways wondered if they were very effective.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I'm kinda curious, did Napoleonic armies ever run a uniform recognition program so that your average soldier would know who not to shoot if not part of their own army? Sort of like the WW2 "This man is your FRIEND - he fights for LIBERTY" stuff? Individual marksmanship just isn't a thing for the average soldier until about 50 years later.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Your average soldier didn't decide what to shoot at. He marched around in a big unit and shot at whatever he was told to shoot at. From what I understand they mostly also didn't so much aim as just line their muskets up to be at the same angle/direction as their neighbor. Although I am sure some of the more experienced men knew how to aim it wasn't required. By the time rifles were common in the ACW though, well, I know a guy who can hit a a 20" target at 400 yards with his antique. e: VVVV That's not how machine guns work irl. It's how they work in movies and video games but not the real world. Machine guns, with their long, heavy barrels, sturdy bases and large caliber, heavy rounds are extremely precise and accurate out to very long ranges. And they fire quickly. Murgos fucked around with this message at 16:12 on May 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Murgos posted:From what I understand they mostly also didn't so much aim as just line their muskets up to be at the same angle/direction as their neighbor. Although I am sure some of the more experienced men knew how to aim it wasn't required. Massed muskets were the equivalent of machine gun fire. Throw a whole bunch of lead in the direction of the enemy and hope something hits.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:gently caress, I'm finding myself sitting here wondering when the last major sea battle was, period? I don't think any of the bullshit naval actions from Vietnam really count, and there weren't really any major fleet-on-fleet throwdowns in the Falklands. More than one Chinese ship fought more than one Vietnamese ship over the Spratlys as late as the 1980s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_South_Reef_Skirmish
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Murgos posted:From what I understand they mostly also didn't so much aim as just line their muskets up to be at the same angle/direction as their neighbor. Although I am sure some of the more experienced men knew how to aim it wasn't required. A smoothbore musket can be relatively accurate, but you have to seriously compromise speed and reliability to make it so. Murgos posted:By the time rifles were common in the ACW though, well, I know a guy who can hit a a 20" target at 400 yards with his antique.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
1853 Enfields as well. They were all over the shop.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
I visited Gettysburg, stood on Cemetery hill, and listened to one of my fellow visitors sperge about how the muskets of the day weren't accurate past fifty feet.  Jesus, if you're gonna visit the battlefield, then you can at least watch a documentary beforehand.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:"the middle class" lol @ that even existing as a concept in those days note how he doesn't let Saxe-Weimar come down on the time travelers like a hammer, because he cares deeply about the welfare of the people of thuringia V. Illych L. posted:complete and utter, at that. the swedish monarchy was stronger than most in europe, but it was still an aristocratic monarchy. this in contrast to denmark-norway, which turned absolutist and pretty much abolished the aristocracy as a political class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_L%C3%BCbeck It interests me that great military commanders in this period are also important political figures, almost by accident. Communication is slow and staffs are negligible, so we have the king of Denmark negotiating with...a dude. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:08 on May 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 19:58
|
|
There is interesting RPG game about Mercenaries called Band Of Brothers (generic as gently caress name though) on STEAM, for a moment I thought it was something based on the era Hey Gal loves but it is low medieval fantasy instead  . Klaus88 posted:I visited Gettysburg, stood on Cemetery hill, and listened to one of my fellow visitors sperge about how the muskets of the day weren't accurate past fifty feet. Should have pushed that fucker down said hill.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
i suspect that the authors may have somewhat mischaracterised gustav adolf also, Denmark's history after the medieval period is generally one lost war after another, i think they won, like, one war during that entire period and that's because the swedes were busy getting wailed on by Peter the Great
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:also, Denmark's history after the medieval period is generally one lost war after another, i think they won, like, one war during that entire period and that's because the swedes were busy getting wailed on by Peter the Great
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yes, but it's kind of hard to call a destroyer ramming a u-boat a "major sea battle." Not a major sea battle but the HMS Dreadnought did that to a sub in WWI. It's the only kill of a submarine by a battleship.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
i should Let's Read the 1632 series
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i should Let's Read the 1632 series please don't
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 21:59
|
|
