|
So remember when someone asked me what languages my subjects' commanders spoke? Right now I'm going through the correspondence of Wolfgang von Mansfeld, Oberst of the Mansfeld Regiment. Mansfeld writes to Theodore Camargo (one of his Oberst-Lieutenants) in French because Camargo is Hispano-Flemish and comes from Brussels. I think. To his superiors, who are Spanish, he writes in Italian. Letters from and to Vratislav von Pernstein, Mansfeld's uncle-in-law and one of his Oberst-Lieutenants, are in German even though von Pernstein is Bohemian. All of these languages come heavily mixed with other languages. Edit: Topics of discussion include: whose daughter is getting married; Mansfeld ordered some maiolica shipped to Leipzig and it never got there, perhaps it was sent somewhere else instead?; the Spanish government in Milan hasn't payed us yet; what the Swiss are doing in the Valtelline; the Spanish still haven't payed us yet. (Seriously, some of the cavalry got so short of funds they started pawning their cloaks and pistols.) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Jul 1, 2015 |
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
xthetenth posted:I'm kinda perplexed as to how 5000 years of history is worth attaching yourself to the guys who lost the Opium War. It's another round in the on-going internal culture war between the conservative ruling powers in China who stress the idea of historical continuity and legitimacy, and the revolutionary Maoist elements.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:All propaganda of course. Everything the Soviets wrote was a lie because communisms. Now if you used impeccable German sources then maybe I would believe you, but they wouldn't say such obvious lies. Ah, but you forget that the German documents in NARA and Bundesarchiv are just clever British forgeries! * *A claim that I have actually heard on the War Thunder forums
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Koreans are just as bizarre about that stuff. Every Korean anything is superior Korea invented everything from the wheel to internet etc. Korean and Turkish are both Altaic languages which shows that they are both descendants of the ancient globe spanning Turkic super-civilization that invented everything. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jul 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:tbh we could probably hash that out right here. Like, why do you think they're dumb? It's not me that thinks it's dumb, but me just getting fed up with with other people thinking it was. I am aware of the basics of it, but I wasn't happy with how much I know and was hoping to find a nice pop history book that's not too inaccurate to answer all the stupid questions. I could probably fill up multiple posts with all the stupid questions I have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
that is why this thread exists, plus it's a vehicle for my constant shitposting
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:It's not me that thinks it's dumb, but me just getting fed up with with other people thinking it was. Let me guess: it involves the War of American Independence (or as the British call it: The late unpleasantness in the colonies), and the craftiness of the American frontiersman in not standing in the middle of a field in a brightly colored uniform?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Okay, so starting off simple: how decisive was the infantry attack in this time period? Was sending a line of soldiers at an enemy position really expected to do anything by itself? Edit: Both some talk about War of Independence but also something I remembered Dan Carlin saying in his first WWI podcast, about some historian in the last chapter of his book writing about what would happened if Alexander the Great's army was at Waterloo, concluding that it would have done better than the real French army. Monocled Falcon fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jul 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:...Sun Language Theory... Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha O my god. I'd never heard of this. I was crying with laughter. Multiple colleagues poked their heads in to make sure I was okay. O my god. It's like saying Esperanto is the first language. I have to share this with my whole department. Thank you. FreudianSlippers posted:Korean and Turkish are both Altaic languages which shows that they are both descendants of the ancient globe spanning Turkic super-civilization that invented everything. That's actually highly contested. I mean, I back it, but it's still not uncontroversial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:Okay, so starting off simple: how decisive was the infantry attack in this time period? Was sending a line of soldiers at an enemy position really expected to do anything by itself? The level of decisiveness of any attack depends on how well prepared the enemy is to receive it, so the question is a bit meaningless. I'll describe for you a textbook single battalion infantry attack, which was intended to work, and did regularly work. Step 1: Normally, your rear end is parked in line. For most armies, this is a three deep line by companies, Grenadiers on right, Light on left (unless they're deployed in skirmish order). For the British, it's a two deep line by companies. Moving anything in a line sucks and is generally very stupid and easy to get disordered, so the first step is to form columns of companies. This means that each of the say, sixty-man companies (60 due to desertion, disease etc) of the battalion is deployed not in a 3x20 section of line, but a 6x10 independent block. You probably stick the first couple companies next to each other for a bit more frontage and to make your evolution from column to line a bit easier, but you end up with something that looks like an ice cube tray where each ice cube is a company, narrow side towards enemy. Step 2: Set off towards the bad dudes, usually at a standard marching pace. This is to keep everything together nice and orderly. Step 3: get shot at a bit on the way by cannons and poo poo. when in a column of companies, the formation is ragingly vulnerable to cavalry, so hope the other team's horse dudes don't show face Step 4: Get to musket range, about 120yds. Hope the enemy shoots early. Get killed some. Advance to 60-80 yards and evolve back in to a line by company, three men deep. Several options: Battalion volley (everyone shoots at once, rare), usually followed by rapid bayonet charge. Company or platoon volleys to smash it out with the enemy line for a while, followed by a general advance if you think you're winning. Step 5: Advance in line at a relatively moderate pace to the enemy and try to intimidate them in to running away. Usually they will, since you don't call for a general advance unless you're a) desperate or b) winning. The french were fond of columns of battalions, which are just blocks by battalion rather than company. You get a lot more mass that way. One of the big myths is that the French tried to attack in columns all the way. I think that might be true for some of the Revolutionary armies, and maybe for some of the later conscripted troops of the empire, but this was usually a mistake rather than design. The French almost always attempted to evolve in to line, but this is hard when you are getting shot up a bunch. As for the second that is some retarded rear end poo poo. The USA has a big lie based boner for the War of Independence, but one of the realities of the war is that the Continental Army and state militias weren't at all effective outside of a guerrilla warfare setting until properly trained in European drill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
actually most Americans do know that we just insist otherwise to troll other countries tbh
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:As for the second that is some retarded rear end poo poo. The USA has a big lie based boner for the War of Independence, but one of the realities of the war is that the Continental Army and state militias weren't at all effective outside of a guerrilla warfare setting until properly trained in European drill. This is why Von Steuben and Valley Forge is important. Funny that the thing that directly related to the armies later success on the battlefield (wintering and training at Valley Forge) almost led to Washington being sacked in favor of Gates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Particularly France. No sirree, it was wooden teeth and eagles all the way down with zero French involvement, who the gently caress is Lafayette, never heard of the guy. Now that I'm thinking of it, how closely tied, causally, was the French revolution with French involvement with the American revolution? There was some mention of this on the Backstory podcast (like freakonomics but for history and not full of nearly as much poo poo) but it was a throwaway mention, to accent what I think was background on the XYZ affair (I was working and only partially listening and since it was a diplomacy topic it kind of droned)
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:about some historian in the last chapter of his book writing about what would happened if Alexander the Great's army was at Waterloo, concluding that it would have done better than the real French army. Whoever wrote this should not be allowed to publish history. Any pre-gunpowder army is going to get torn to living poo poo by artillery and shot to pieces by the infantry. Imagine this: a poo poo ton of modern riot cops attacking an equal number of men armed with muskets. Same general situation, except now give the dudes with muskets a bunch of cannon. Bronze armor does not react well to grapeshot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:actually most Americans do know that we just insist otherwise to troll other countries tbh I wish that was true, but MOST Americans don't even know what year the Declaration of Independence was signed, much less how the the war was fought. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Particularly France. No sirree, it was wooden teeth and eagles all the way down with zero French involvement, who the gently caress is Lafayette, never heard of the guy. France pretty much ruined itself paying for that war (an early modern state with shaky finances? Unheard of!), plus I guess the idea of a nation embracing modern, enlightened ideas about republicanism did resonate very well with the growing French middle class who were really pissed off at the idea of being unable to get any real political participation due to a political system designed to keep them from doing just that. It's honestly one of the bigger mysteries of history to me why the US and France didn't become BFFs, standing alone in the dark world of absolutist monarchies as true republics, ready to lead mankind into a brighter future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
I can imagine the Napoleonic era cavalry being like 'whoa so thats where our helmet designs come from!' picking over those bloody gunshot torn corpses after the battle. And some officer sperging about the Romans being better.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Particularly France. No sirree, it was wooden teeth and eagles all the way down with zero French involvement, who the gently caress is Lafayette, never heard of the guy. It was pretty big. The huge thing was how much loving money the French spent on the war that they got into with England, of which America was a side-theater. There are also some intellectual connections. Thomas Paine, for example, moved to France for a bit and went on to write a bunch of stuff for the French Rev. as well. edit: I could be wrong on this, but I'm also pretty sure the US government was one of the very first to recognize the Revolutionary French government. It was a pretty big gently caress you to England at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
I think there must be confusion about the quote ; I know Carlin gets mocked here a lot, but he's not that dumb. Having recently re-listened to all of the WWI podcasts*, the only mention to Alexander the Great I remember his him talking about the relative size of the armies, i.e. look at how insane the scale of how big these WWI armies is. *I was cleaning, shut up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:Both some talk about War of Independence but also something I remembered Dan Carlin saying in his first WWI podcast, about some historian in the last chapter of his book writing about what would happened if Alexander the Great's army was at Waterloo, concluding that it would have done better than the real French army. I want to talk about this some more because it irritates the poo poo out of me. Broadly, the French failures at Waterloo were: 0. Not following up on the Prussians effectively after Ligny, and then following up ineffectively with a large force that would have been better served concentrated 1. dicking around in the morning until about ten AM because the ground was wet 2. Attacking piecemeal in alternating infantry and cavalry attacks - a single decent follow-up by infantry during the cavalry attacks probably pushes in the Allied lines 3. Failure to fully commit to the Guard attacks Arguably, continuing to push men in to Hougoumont was a mistake as well, but I think it's forgiveable. I don't see how Alexander's army of solves any of these problems, unless you rate Alexander as a better commander than Napoleon that would have solved Problem Zero. They certainly don't get started any earlier, because they're dependent on heavy cavalry which requires dry ground. Even if they were able to mount any kind of combined arms attack up-hill, the reason that the combined arms attack works is that line infantry is able to pour shot in to a square to make it break so the cav gets to have their fun. This does not work when most of your army has spears or swords.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It was pretty big. The huge thing was how much loving money the French spent on the war that they got into with England, of which America was a side-theater. There are also some intellectual connections. Thomas Paine, for example, moved to France for a bit and went on to write a bunch of stuff for the French Rev. as well. One more thing on the US/French revolutionary connections: Lafayette was pretty huge in the French assembly during the run-up to the revolution. He was the author o the Declaration of the Rights of Man (which Jefferson consulted on). So yeah, some pretty big connections between the US revolution and the French one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
raverrn posted:Can anyone recommend any good audio books on the eastern front? I have a sudden interest. I'd start with Dan Carlin's Hardcore History "Ghosts of the Ostfront". It's by no means comprehensive or very in-depth, but it is dramatically done and very entertaining. It's a matter of taste, of course, but I prefer my detailed academic stuff in written form as it's easier to reference and go back and forth on and my entertaining stuff for in the car or while exercising and what-not. In that respect Carlin works very well from a broad and entertaining view. And hell, it's only $6 for 5 1/2 hours of Eastern Front horror. That's worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:France pretty much ruined itself paying for that war (an early modern state with shaky finances? Unheard of!), plus I guess the idea of a nation embracing modern, enlightened ideas about republicanism did resonate very well with the growing French middle class who were really pissed off at the idea of being unable to get any real political participation due to a political system designed to keep them from doing just that. It's honestly one of the bigger mysteries of history to me why the US and France didn't become BFFs, standing alone in the dark world of absolutist monarchies as true republics, ready to lead mankind into a brighter future. The post-Napoleonic restoration is pretty much the answer to that. We were BFFs for most of the early 19th century but poo poo soured quickly when France started loving around in Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:a poo poo ton of modern riot cops attacking an equal number of men armed with muskets. it's weird, people have brought this up a couple of times recently (for some reason) I think with the general idea that Macedonians or Romans or whomever would eventually manage to drown out the muskets through sheer weight of numbers, but weren't Napoleonic-era armies vastly larger than anything that came before? Wikipedia says Napoleon had like five times more men than Alexander.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Whoever wrote this should not be allowed to publish history. On land, they used canister - smaller balls, more of them, plus the fragments of the metal casing for extra fun! 400yds effective range for all your infantry and cavalry killing needs! Double-shot it with a round shot for that extra-special someone!
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I think there must be confusion about the quote ; I know Carlin gets mocked here a lot, but he's not that dumb. Nah, ignore the haters. Carlin's perfect to listen to while doing the laundry, mowing the lawn, or on a long drive. Just as long as you remember not to take his interpretation as gospel and to just enjoy it as a light introduction to a topic, and you'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The post-Napoleonic restoration is pretty much the answer to that. We were BFFs for most of the early 19th century but poo poo soured quickly when France started loving around in Mexico. drat, I forgot about that. Oh Napoleon III, is there anything you didn't gently caress up? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Koramei posted:it's weird, people have brought this up a couple of times recently (for some reason) I think with the general idea that Macedonians or Romans or whomever would eventually manage to drown out the muskets through sheer weight of numbers, but weren't Napoleonic-era armies vastly larger than anything that came before? Wikipedia says Napoleon had like five times more men than Alexander. It's especially bizarre to me because sure, Alexander's armies and the Civil War era legions were really loving good, but by the third coalition your average line battalion in any of the armies of the warring powers is going to be equally hard, equally well trained, and also armed with way better poo poo with better tactics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I think there must be confusion about the quote ; I know Carlin gets mocked here a lot, but he's not that dumb. Yeah, don't think it was Carlin, I think it was a guy Carlin was talking about, based on the quote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:On land, they used canister - smaller balls, more of them, plus the fragments of the metal casing for extra fun! 400yds effective range for all your infantry and cavalry killing needs! Double-shot it with a round shot for that extra-special someone! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
and my subjects would not be able to beat classical Roman armies because all their officers would have huge shrieking nerd fits about classical antiquity and refuse to fight
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:skip it off the earth just ahead of an advancing company front to put in just the right place, which is chest height There are some nice stories about "hey look a cannon ball is bouncing towards me real slow let me just reach out and *pulls back a bloody stump*"  F=ma son
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:and my subjects would not be able to beat classical Roman armies because all their officers would have huge shrieking nerd fits about classical antiquity and refuse to fight I suppose the Romans might find death in battle preferable to being swarmed by fanboys, so perhaps some sort of Latin suicide by mercenary might occur instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Nah, ignore the haters. Carlin's perfect to listen to while doing the laundry, mowing the lawn, or on a long drive. Just as long as you remember not to take his interpretation as gospel and to just enjoy it as a light introduction to a topic, and you'll be fine. and never listen to his other podcast, ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 22:23
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:There are some nice stories about "hey look a cannon ball is bouncing towards me real slow let me just reach out and *pulls back a bloody stump*" The ones I heard were dudes kicking or moving to try and smugly stop the roundshot with their feet thinking it was a delightful ball rather than touching it, but the result of course was the same!
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Imagine this: a poo poo ton of modern riot cops attacking an equal number of men armed with muskets. Same general situation, except now give the dudes with muskets a bunch of cannon. Bronze armor does not react well to grapeshot. While I agree in general, I'm pretty sure Alexander's army wasn't rocking bronze. That's Homer, or at least as far back from Alexander as Hey Gal's folks are from us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Asking who would win between two hugely disparate armies is really only good as a silly thought exercise, people take it too seriously. That said, I think what people suppose would give the edge to melee armies over Napoleonic armies is the idea that a Roman legion or whatever is mainly ready to fight at any time, anywhere, whereas a Napoleonic era battle requires a ton of setup time. So there's this idea of the two sides just 'appearing' next to each other, with all the artillery still limbered up and everyone in marching columns. I'm not sure if this is a good argument, anyway. EDIT: I mean, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but a lot of the advantages of a gunpowder army is dependent on them mounting a prepared defense of a well-chosen position that the other guys are attacking. Or if they are attacking some kind of camp or fort. That's not necessarily the only context for any such battle. Fangz fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jul 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Asking who would win between two hugely disparate armies is really only good as a silly thought exercise, people take it too seriously. That said, I think what people suppose would give the edge to melee armies over Napoleonic armies is the idea that a Roman legion or whatever is mainly ready to fight at any time, anywhere, whereas a Napoleonic era battle requires a ton of setup time. So there's this idea of the two sides just 'appearing' next to each other, with all the artillery still limbered up and everyone in marching columns. I'm not sure if this is a good argument, anyway. Well, sure, but part of a good gunpowder army is using cavalry and other light forces to find the enemy well in advance so you can then get setup and prepared for that battle. When you fail to do so properly is when you get hosed up by otherwise inferior forces. Granting the melee based army that kind of surprise doesn't really tell us anything more than "a gunpowder army is vulnerable if it fucks up and you catch it by surprise." Whether that army is Caesar and the Tenth Legion dropped out of time or Albert Sidney Johnston and the Army of Mississippi catching Grant with his pants down at the first day of Shiloh, surprise still matters. A balanced approach where both armies get their full capabilities, including reconnaissance, is the only way to think your thought experiment and make it "fair".
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Particularly France. No sirree, it was wooden teeth and eagles all the way down with zero French involvement, who the gently caress is Lafayette, never heard of the guy. After the events of 1789, though, the directorate were kind of dicks to the Americans, by trying to stop us from trading with Britain. Which led to an undeclared naval war w/ France and the XYZ affair, which nearly led to a real war. Cooler heads prevailed after warmer heads rolled, and they patched things up in time for 1803 amd 1812, but early on it was touch and go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
jng2058 posted:Well, sure, but part of a good gunpowder army is using cavalry and other light forces to find the enemy well in advance so you can then get setup and prepared for that battle. When you fail to do so properly is when you get hosed up by otherwise inferior forces. Granting the melee based army that kind of surprise doesn't really tell us anything more than "a gunpowder army is vulnerable if it fucks up and you catch it by surprise." Whether that army is Caesar and the Tenth Legion dropped out of time or Albert Sidney Johnston and the Army of Mississippi catching Grant with his pants down at the first day of Shiloh, surprise still matters. Setting up a melee army takes a fair bit of preparation as well. Any number of classical/medieval battles start and end with 'x was surprised and still encamped when y appeared on the field and did not have time to form up in battle formation properly'
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 23:20
|
|
