|
Squalid posted:man China has always had the best palace intrigue. Combining weirdo religious cults just makes it even sweeter. It really reads like some poo poo straight out of Game of Thrones. "Ah yup, here comes the crazy one who says God is speaking to him". It's amazing that this isn't known better in the west, and much thanks to P-mack for typing it all up.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Charles V was whatever the gently caress he wanted to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
I will second my dad's request to let us know when you finish your effort posts P-Mack, I too want to read them in a couple sittings because I am bad with names. I really should see about making some effort posts on my nation's early history, considering how little represented South American military history is in this thread.  (Also I just finished reading the 1950 posts that had accumulated the last two months. It was unironically great)
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
All I know about recent South American military history is that Uruguay went loving insane and almost got the entire male population killed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
That's Paraguay
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Yeah that was some crazy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:All I know about recent South American military history is that Uruguay went loving insane and almost got the entire male population killed. The Chaco war was kind of neat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Azran posted:That's Paraguay Some insert an image of South America with the wrong country high lighted on purpose like on Last Week Tonight!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 15:09
|
|
thatbastardken posted:Yeah that was some crazy poo poo. And somehow led to the creation of what I am sure is either the most laid back or This Is Spinal Tap version of a reinactment battle. Seriously, this picture has amused/bothered me for years. The context will sadly forever be a mystery to me.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:Yeah that was some crazy poo poo. Was any country not in some kind of nationally defining war between 1864 and 1870? Was that the decade where the Napoleonic wars were juuuuuust long enough ago that people started going "Well, they couldn't have been that bad..."
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Was any country not in some kind of nationally defining war between 1864 and 1870? Was that the decade where the Napoleonic wars were juuuuuust long enough ago that people started going "Well, they couldn't have been that bad..." I don't think Britain was involved in anything notable then, was it? Certainly nothing that defined the nation. That being said, I think it's less a case of "everyone had a nationally defining war during that period" and more "the idea of defining the nation began to be important during that period."
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Was any country not in some kind of nationally defining war between 1864 and 1870? Was that the decade where the Napoleonic wars were juuuuuust long enough ago that people started going "Well, they couldn't have been that bad..." Tomn posted:I don't think Britain was involved in anything notable then, was it? Certainly nothing that defined the nation. British North America had to deal with attacks across the U.S. border from the Fenian Brotherhood, between that and the American Civil War, concern about British North America's military readiness were a huge factor in the creation of Canada as its own country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Was any country not in some kind of nationally defining war between 1864 and 1870? Was that the decade where the Napoleonic wars were juuuuuust long enough ago that people started going "Well, they couldn't have been that bad..." Russia was also maxin' relaxin' at the time (the Crimean War was a bit earlier, and wasn't particularly nationally-defining).
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I don't think Britain was involved in anything notable then, was it? Certainly nothing that defined the nation. The Crimean War/Charge of the Light Brigade. edit: drat, i had the decade number wrong for my remembering of the Crimean War. 10 years too soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Was there anything for Spain or Portugal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
It just after the second Polish-Lithuanian revolt in Russian Empire. It didn't go well for us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Goddamn - the Taiping revolt. We had to kill 1 person, but we killed 29,999 more just to be safe?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
WW2 Data We take our first look at IJN markings and the complex colour system they have. Expect updates to alternate between Russian and IJN projectiles for the time being.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Sir Ian Hamilton could surely have kept a small battalion of psychotherapists and braincare specialists in work for years trying to figure him out. Generals may be boring, but watching the change in the mentality of his diary entries, in direct and complete opposition to what's being played out in front of him, is rather fascinating in a slow-motion train crash kind of way. Meanwhile, the Caucasus front settles down into a period of general inactivity as both sides divert resources to other theatres, and Herbert Sulzbach enjoys the singing of a poilu across the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Generals may be boring,
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Same. Reading a little about British Riflemen of the Napoleonic Wars the other night, and well Coote Manningham what a guy!
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Well, they were wizards. Surely the Gallipoli campaign could have been improved had Britain seen fit to send one Harold James Potter as support. Alas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Azran posted:That's Paraguay That's how little I know!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Azran posted:I will second my dad's request to let us know when you finish your effort posts P-Mack, I too want to read them in a couple sittings because I am bad with names. Nebakenezzer posted:Goddamn - the Taiping revolt. We had to kill 1 person, but we killed 29,999 more just to be safe? no half measures
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Publish it as a case as to why this poo poo is super interesting and you should learn more so as to have blazing arguments about it like people do with WWII.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
If I weren't super lazy I'd do a bunch of posts about the Triple Alliance War (aka Paraguay war) but I kinda doubt my own knowledge on the matter because most of the early books I read as a student were from Marxist historians who claimed that plucky little Paraguay wanted to become an anti-imperialist power but was crushed by the three countries under the evil British behest while stuff I read portray it as a tragedy brought by a combination of chaotic Uruguayian politics, Brazil and Argentina's attempts to create their own sphere of influence and Solano Lopez' megalomania.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:If I weren't super lazy I'd do a bunch of posts about the Triple Alliance War (aka Paraguay war) but I kinda doubt my own knowledge on the matter because most of the early books I read as a student were from Marxist historians who claimed that plucky little Paraguay wanted to become an anti-imperialist power but was crushed by the three countries under the evil British behest while stuff I read portray it as a tragedy brought by a combination of chaotic Uruguayian politics, Brazil and Argentina's attempts to create their own sphere of influence and Solano Lopez' megalomania. Just write what you think you know. I'll guarantee 99% of us know less and it might spark a few people to dig deeper. Even if people end up highlighting how your account has some regrettable bullshit in it it's a great starting place for an interesting conversation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
There are millions of amazing anecdotes from the War of the Triple Alliance. One of my favorites is how half the Argentine army sat out the entire war because they were in the employ of ex-President Justo Urquiza, who was still mad at President Juan Manuel de Rosa for deposing him him four years earlier. Instead of fighting they made mad bank selling beef to both sides from Urquiza's province of Entre Rios.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Who were the first military reenactors? Who were the first reenactors who did it because they wanted a hobby, rather than because Duke Stupendous hired a bunch of dudes to wear woefully inaccurate recreations of Roman armor and make a spectacle to impress some dignitaries?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Who were the first military reenactors? Who were the first reenactors who did it because they wanted a hobby, rather than because Duke Stupendous hired a bunch of dudes to wear woefully inaccurate recreations of Roman armor and make a spectacle to impress some dignitaries? Maybe this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eglinton_Tournament_of_1839
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Didn't the Romans reenact battles as part their shows in the Coliseum? Even to the point of flooding it to reenact naval battles, as I recall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Didn't the Romans reenact battles as part their shows in the Coliseum? Even to the point of flooding it to reenact naval battles, as I recall. Yeah, but he asked about hobbyist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Didn't the Romans reenact battles as part their shows in the Coliseum? Even to the point of flooding it to reenact naval battles, as I recall. Naumachia?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Who were the first military reenactors? Who were the first reenactors who did it because they wanted a hobby, rather than because Duke Stupendous hired a bunch of dudes to wear woefully inaccurate recreations of Roman armor and make a spectacle to impress some dignitaries? Apparently, the Spartans were still doing phalanx stuff out of tradition at least up until the fourth century or so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Squalid posted:There are millions of amazing anecdotes from the War of the Triple Alliance. One of my favorites is how half the Argentine army sat out the entire war because they were in the employ of ex-President Justo Urquiza, who was still mad at President Juan Manuel de Rosa for deposing him him four years earlier. Instead of fighting they made mad bank selling beef to both sides from Urquiza's province of Entre Rios. If there are more,  this is amazing!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
100 Years Ago As further evidence of just how far Sir Ian Hamilton is going off the deep end, his response to "The men will have to advance a considerable distance over open ground" has become "Right, let's do a night attack so they can't see us coming!" Because that worked so well last time, right? Because the Ottomans have really demonstrated the effectiveness of night attacks as their standard counter-attack tactic over the last few months, right? I don't think I've ever come across someone who was widely viewed as being in their right mind and yet had such a bizarrely counter-intuitive reaction to failure. The August offensive hasn't even been a "so near, but yet so far!" operation, it's been a complete cake and arse party all round.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
So what exactly is preventing the allied command from going "Welp this was a terrible idea, pack it in lads, good try" at this point? By now it should have been fairly obvious that breakthroughs aren't happening out of trench warfare (and certainly not from undersupported forces without the depth to assemble ample reserves they don't have anyway), and that Istanbul is way too far away to take by an overland campaign that moves at the pace of one hundred yards per thousand casualties or worse. Surely those troops could be better used on the western front. Sunk cost fallacy? Is there even an attempt at forcing the straits anymore? Just pure institutional inertia? Lack of willingness in high command to accept the fact?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
I'll be getting onto that in a little while, but there are a number of "I can see why you might think that" reasons. Most obviously and practically, they're tying up over 300,000 Ottoman infantrymen (and their food, ammunition, logistics chain, and many of their German military advisors). A lot of the blokes are now experienced and toughened trench fighters, who if they weren't trying not to die of dysentry on Gallipoli might otherwise be fighting in Mesopotamia, or the Caucasus, or attacking the Suez Canal. Then, in the same way that attempting opposed landings in April had been completely unprecedented for the Army, attempting an opposed running-away operation is equally unprecedented and dangerous. There's also a widespread political belief that withdrawing will fatally damage the prestige of the British Empire, prompting all kinds of undesirable rumblings in the interior, and defections of fickle tribal chieftains, particularly in the Middle East. The whole thing is also tied up with people's general outlooks on how best to prosecute the war; if you're a Western Front-at-all-costs type, you probably think it's a waste of time and better wound up quickly; if you're a "widen the war to deprive Germany of allies" type, you need it to continue and be a success to prove that your strategy is viable. Most of the reasons for staying are, with the benefit of hindsight, probably bollocks, but much of it is very understandable. edit: Oh, and Sir Ian Hamilton's diary is still full of meetings with Admirals de Roebeck and Keyes so that they can be ready to charge the Dardanelles again, just as soon as they've sorted out those pesky field guns so the minefields in the Narrows can be cleared - he has at least kept a clear sight on what the basic strategic goal of his campaign is. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Aug 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
Still, Gallipoli breaks my heart more than Western front ever did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
Much of WW1 was riddled with terrible sunk cost fallacy types of reasoning. It broke their hearts at the time to send so many men to their deaths at the time, too, but that was all the more reason to keep sending guys, so that the first ones did not die in vain!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 13:35
|
|