|
bewbies posted:My bosses boss was a troop commander at 73 easting. He talks about it a lot. Well it's nice that he survived it and managed to start a new career outside Iraq.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Murgos was talking about reasons why an average Southerner would fight for the Confederacy despite not owning slaves themselves. In this case, a class system/culture that can be traced back to Europe. Uh, really it's just the same social evolution around an economic system that produces oligarchies all over the world - wealth being centred on a landowning elite means everyone needs to justify to themselves and others why there's no prospects of social mobility at all. Saying it's about a class/culture system that can be traced back to Europe is rubbish when: a) applies equally to the North and b) Slavery was abolished in the UK and France within the lifetime of US independence. If anything, slavery existed in Europe for longer because of the influence and demands of the American and Caribbean colonies, not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:There was also a dark(er) side to the bullshit paternalistic justifications for slavery that held that blacks were so inferior a race that they couldn't be given adult responsibility and needed to be enslaved for their own sake, in that it justified and fed into fears of black revanchism and barbarity of the sort portrayed in Birth of a Nation. So there was an active component of fear to things as well. Fears of black revenge were also a big part of democrat policy in the north as well. Calls for civil rights were often countered with fears of negro hordes migrating north to ravage their women. This was also one of the reasons the Union army held out against recruiting blacks, along with them being unruly/too servile/too stupid. Hilariously the paternalistic bullshit was also present. Several teachers who went south found themselves surprised at the black populations eagerness for education (literacy especially) and the speed they picked up on things since they were expecting inferior lackwits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Koramei posted:It was his levies or something wasn't it? I forget the specific term, but each village was supposed to muster a few men or whatever and Harold had them stationed along the southern coast to repel William through the entire summer; so long that people started to get pissed off. He was well aware William was coming. By the time the Normans and Hardrada actually landed it was autumn, so the levies had all gone back home to harvest and Harold was left with just his dedicated soldiers. Sorry, I was out of town on a long weekend of getting sunburned. Yes, it was the fyrd, which has already had a helpful link posted. Harold dismissed the fyrd after Stamford Bridge, because he thought he wouldn't need them anymore this year, and they needed to go harvest the crops so that England could eat. I believe Harold was able to call up some of the fyrd while he was in and around London, and it was these levies and his profession troops, the housecarls, that were at Hastings. Yes, William was stuck on the French side, paying out the rear end for ships and troops and provisions while waiting for the weather to look like he could actually sail a mostly-intact fleet across. Luckily for him, the weather broke at the best possible time. Harold's army was probably not that exhausted; they waited and regrouped in London for roughly a week before heading out. They were outnumbered, with the English having around 7-8,000 men to the the Norman's 10-12,000, though the English fought in a defensive shield-wall formation on top of Senlac Hill. The Normans did not break the English formation, they had to feign retreat multiple times to get the English to do that for them. Harold himself was either killed by an arrow to the eye, leading to the lack of leadership/discipline that allowed the shield-wall to break, or was hacked apart afterwards in the ensuing chaos. It was hard fought on both sides, and neither side had an overwhelming dis/advantage. I'm not sure where the "Harold was too demoralized to lead" bit comes from, but if William having a Papal banner/blessing could cause such a reaction in him, you'd think that Harold would have felt bound by an oath sworn on the bones of a saint. But yes, William's landing happened at the best time for him and the worst for Harold. Though even after Hastings, William had to put down multiple uprisings and starve out the North to cement his conquest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
this weekend i met a guy who named his infant son after maurice of nassau
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
tweekinator posted:I'm not sure where the "Harold was too demoralized to lead" bit comes from, but if William having a Papal banner/blessing could cause such a reaction in him, you'd think that Harold would have felt bound by an oath sworn on the bones of a saint. Not to mention that popes pulled this sort of political poo poo all the time in the middle ages. It was more like having a UN Resolution against you than some super duper 'oh god the Lord is going to send me to hell forever' type thing to rulers of the time. (Pluuuus, the only person claiming the Pope gave William approval and a banner for the invasion was William's personal chaplain, in a biography written after the invasion. Just a leetle bit biased perhaps. The Pope approved it once William was successful but that's called backing the winning horse)
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:this weekend i met a guy who named his infant son after maurice of nassau I keep threatening my girlfriend that I'll name our first son Máel Sechnaill feedmegin posted:Not to mention that popes pulled this sort of political poo poo all the time in the middle ages. It was more like having a UN Resolution against you than some super duper 'oh god the Lord is going to send me to hell forever' type thing to rulers of the time. The Normans invaded Ireland with Papal authority under the pretence of reforming the Celtic Church
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
also today i found out that Graf von Mansfeld pays an imperial war commissioner 140 Thaler / month "for his efforts/cooperation." Is it even corruption if nobody cares about hiding it? It's in one of his budgets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Edit: Speaking of Lee, I have a question. I've been reading a bunch about Tilly, who was in his early 70s when he got famous, and I'm wondering if any of Lee's colleagues raised misgivings about his age. Also, apart from the heart thing, which I already knew about, how was his health? Except for kidney stones and the lingering effects of having been seriously wounded about five times in his life, Tilly seems to have been fine until his leg got blown apart at Lech/Rain, which for this century is insane. Nasty getting-shot-at habit, though. Lee was born in 1807, so he was 53 when the war started, quite a bit younger than Tilly (and the US Civil War didn't run for 30 years  ) I haven't heard that he suffered from any health problems, aside from getting seriously ill in 1864, but that was normal disease, not a chronic condition. He was never wounded, either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Double American Civil War post. When it comes to causes, don't forget that tensions had been ramping up for decades. That's lots of time to read in the local press (the only source of news) about how terrible those monsters in the North/South are. When you look at things like "bleeding Kansas," it's more of a surprise that the war didn't kick off earlier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:Lee was born in 1807, so he was 53 when the war started, quite a bit younger than Tilly (and the US Civil War didn't run for 30 years Never wounded? Excellent luck, I guess; my guys' officers seem much more likely to die than the common soldiers. Of course, Lee just has his staff following him, not hundreds of dudes in the most blinged-out armor they can afford.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
I know his soldiers called him "Granny Lee" which is kind of funny I guess
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:I know his soldiers called him "Granny Lee" which is kind of funny I guess Being in your 50s in the 1860s probably was grandfather age or verging on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
i don't remember if tilly said this about himself or if this was a common joke, but "there are three things he's never done. Had sex, gotten drunk, or lost a fight." Apart from the killing people for money bit, dude lived like a priest Edit: chitoryu12 posted:Being in your 50s in the 1860s probably was grandfather age or verging on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:I know his soldiers called him "Granny Lee" which is kind of funny I guess Also the king of spades because of his crazy insistence on maybe having some trenches around Richmond.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
 Hey, firearms technology had greatly advanced by the time of the civil war!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Oh, I thought he was in his 60s. That's much more tolerable, even though the camping and whatnot probably wasn't great for him. And Tilly had been a soldier since he was 14, fighting in the Netherlands and Hungary as well as the 30yw once it got started. By the ACW, army commanders tended to stay back somewhere they had a good view, rather than getting into the smoke from rifle fire. Plenty of generals got killed, but mostly the "lower" ones who were directly commanding a brigade or division. There were two or three occasions where Lee moved to take personal command of an attack. In every case the soldiers would only advance if he *didn't* go with them. On one occasion a Texas brigade is recorded as shouting "Lee to the rear!" as they lowered bayonets and charged past him. On another soldiers physically pulled his horse back. They're great moments if you're a romantic about the war. Do not underestimate the bond between Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia; it was almost religious. Actually, given how long Tilly served, I bet you can find four year periods where he didn't take a wound. Man, that's a long time - what sort of mental state are you in when you devote 60 years to war?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:There were two or three occasions where Lee moved to take personal command of an attack. In every case the soldiers would only advance if he *didn't* go with them. On one occasion a Texas brigade is recorded as shouting "Lee to the rear!" as they lowered bayonets and charged past him. On another soldiers physically pulled his horse back. They're great moments if you're a romantic about the war. Do not underestimate the bond between Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia; it was almost religious. Reading about those moments made it really seem like Lee was trying to get himself killed as every single attempt was after something he'd planned had gone wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:also today i found out that Graf von Mansfeld pays an imperial war commissioner 140 Thaler / month "for his efforts/cooperation." Is it even corruption if nobody cares about hiding it? It's in one of his budgets. Klaus88 posted:
I'd say 200 years is a huge amount of improvement, going from Rifles being in the hands of the elite and to my knowledge never used by the rank and file to being used by almost everyone. The Springfield 1842 had almost been phased out by the end of the US Civil War hadn't it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:
Well, in the 1600s, rifles aren't even the best weapon for elite troops. Having an heavily fouled barrel is a much bigger problem for rifles than for muskets. So before the minie ball, riflemen had like 2-3 shots before they had to wash their guns, which really hurt their rate of fire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:Double American Civil War post. When it comes to causes, don't forget that tensions had been ramping up for decades. That's lots of time to read in the local press (the only source of news) about how terrible those monsters in the North/South are. When you look at things like "bleeding Kansas," it's more of a surprise that the war didn't kick off earlier. This is true. Slavery was a constant source of tension in American politics. I want to say that slavery was completely incompatible with the US constitution, but clearly not everybody felt that way. This is weird: I'm a Canadian but have an interest in American politics, and once read a book of the administrations of all the Presidents. One theme running from Andrew Jackson to Abraham Lincoln was how much trouble the slavery issue caused the presidents. When candidates for President were picked, they were often scrutinized for being 'correct' on the slavery issue. BurningStone mentioned "bleeding Kansas." Franklin Pierce, the president over that clusterfuck, was originally picked as a democratic candidate because the was 1) a Northerner and 2) didn't hold with messing with Slavery. (The convention had taken about 50 votes at this point, to try and nominate somebody who was palatable to both the Northern and Southern Democrats. The North was full of abolitionists, and the south obviously wanted slavery forever. Pierce was very much a compromise candidate.) Pirece is now regarded as one of the worst Presidents, and he won like his fellow bad president Warren Harding because he looked like a president. His four years in office saw a single genuine success, (something about negotiating a border extension with Mexico), but was otherwise a series of almost incredible disasters. Kansas was one of these. Pierce saw the creation of Nebraska and Kansas as states, appointed a bunch of pro-slavery people to positions there, and then said that elections would decide if the states held with slavery or not. Of course pro-slavery people flooded the state, and then then anti-slavery people flooded the state, and both tried to set up their own governments as the "true" government of Kansas, and soon a mini civil war was brewing. In Congress, a Republican senator, Charles Sumner gave a speech later known as "Crimes against Kansas", which was open in its use of rape imagery, and the next day a pro-slavery relative of one of the southern senators Sumner had involved in the extended rape metaphor nearly beat Sumner to death, with a cane, on the senate floor. Troops had to be called in to keep Kansas from becoming the first battlefield of the civil war, and sporadic fighting continued until the civil war actually happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:By the ACW, army commanders tended to stay back somewhere they had a good view, rather than getting into the smoke from rifle fire. Plenty of generals got killed, but mostly the "lower" ones who were directly commanding a brigade or division. OTOH, when Grant's position began taking fire, and his officers suggested that it would be a good idea to pull back, he supposedly said it would be an even better idea to pull up some artillery and return fire...
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:They're great moments if you're a romantic about the war. Do not underestimate the bond between Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia; it was almost religious. I don't think any of them would have considered preventing him from fighting with them, though. I'm not sure it would even have crossed anyone's mind as a potential option, the only time I can think of something like that is that Wallenstein didn't take the saddle on days when he was unusually sick. Hell, he was sick as hell on the days around Luetzen and fought anyway, the surgeon had cut bits of flesh out of his feet so he wadded his stirrups with scraps of silk. Difference between the 17th and the 19th centuries I guess. Hazzard posted:Was there even any justification for why he was getting paid? You could argue he's there for military advisement couldn't you? that's what Commissarius means, he's there from the commissary HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Reading about those moments made it really seem like Lee was trying to get himself killed as every single attempt was after something he'd planned had gone wrong. I've always harbored the same suspicion. It's worth noting that all of the famous "Lee to the rear!" instances happened later in the war when Grant was just grinding on him and the bloodbath on both sides was insane. poo poo like the Wilderness and Spotsylvania Courthouse look more like proto-WW1 battles than the late Napoleonic stuff that the first years of the war resemble. I've always wondered if he didn't see things getting really hosed, his situation untenable, and kinda wanted to go out like Jackson.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I've always harbored the same suspicion. It's worth noting that all of the famous "Lee to the rear!" instances happened later in the war when Grant was just grinding on him and the bloodbath on both sides was insane. poo poo like the Wilderness and Spotsylvania Courthouse look more like proto-WW1 battles than the late Napoleonic stuff that the first years of the war resemble. I've always wondered if he didn't see things getting really hosed, his situation untenable, and kinda wanted to go out like Jackson. By which you mean blundering into a nest of friendly troops at night and dying from a case of blue on blue fire? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:By which you mean blundering into a nest of friendly troops at night and dying from a case of blue on blue fire? Almost worked for Longstreet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
can any of this thread's many Nordics tell me if anyone around Gustavus Adolphus told him that maybe the whole leading from the front thing was a tad unsafe for a head of state
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:can any of this thread's many Nordics tell me if anyone around Gustavus Adolphus told him that maybe the whole leading from the front thing was a tad unsafe for a head of state Nah, remember: Crowned heads can only be killed by bullets made of silver, and do you seriously believe the average Landsknecht isn't going to spend any silver he gets on drink? Dude was absolutely safe and sound, until he ran into a bunch of Quakers or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I've always harbored the same suspicion. It's worth noting that all of the famous "Lee to the rear!" instances happened later in the war when Grant was just grinding on him and the bloodbath on both sides was insane. poo poo like the Wilderness and Spotsylvania Courthouse look more like proto-WW1 battles than the late Napoleonic stuff that the first years of the war resemble. I've always wondered if he didn't see things getting really hosed, his situation untenable, and kinda wanted to go out like Jackson. My amateur impression of Lee's generalship at Gettysburg was that he just wanted the whole drat thing to be over one way or the other. This would be right around the time he starts suffering heart issues. Dude was just getting tired. And then of course things kept going and going. I spent a day out at Gettysburg with a backpack and guide book last week. Will get some pictures uploaded. BurningStone posted:By the ACW, army commanders tended to stay back somewhere they had a good view, rather than getting into the smoke from rifle fire. Plenty of generals got killed, but mostly the "lower" ones who were directly commanding a brigade or division. Gettysburg was pretty bad for everyone but 3 Union Corps commanders out of 7 went down during the engagement. Reynolds 30 minutes after he takes the field on Day 1. Sickles on Day 2. Hancock and I believe his replacement on Day 3. Hunterhr fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Hunterhr posted:My amateur impression of Lee's generalship at Gettysburg was that he just wanted the whole drat thing to be over one way or the other. This would be right around the time he starts suffering heart issues. Hancock survived. He was in grave danger, rallying the men from the front lines, but he wasn't hit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
This might be a bit obscure of a question, but in the Luftwaffe would artillery spotters on recon planes like the Storch or Uhu be attached to the Luftwaffe or Heer?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Hunterhr posted:My amateur impression of Lee's generalship at Gettysburg was that he just wanted the whole drat thing to be over one way or the other. This would be right around the time he starts suffering heart issues. Most histories argue he was more ...riled than worn out. You can see why this might've been the case: his cavalry was nowhere to be seen, Ewell was timid, Hill was sick, neither were inspiring a lot of confidence, his opponent was very close to breaking on several occasions but never did, Washington was right drat there, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Most histories argue he was more ...riled than worn out. You can see why this might've been the case: his cavalry was nowhere to be seen, Ewell was timid, Hill was sick, neither were inspiring a lot of confidence, his opponent was very close to breaking on several occasions but never did, Washington was right drat there, and so on. The offensive campaign was his big idea and the last one surely only failed because McClellan got a full set of his plans so this is definitely going to win the war and why is everyone loving this up do I have to do everything myself?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
sullat posted:Hancock survived. He was in grave danger, rallying the men from the front lines, but he wasn't hit. Uh. He lived but was pretty badly wounded. Same as Sickles. Hunterhr fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Molentik posted:This might be a bit obscure of a question, but in the Luftwaffe would artillery spotters on recon planes like the Storch or Uhu be attached to the Luftwaffe or Heer? I don't know, but I'm guessing they were Luftwaffe. Paratroopers and Anti-aircraft artillery were Luftwaffe, as were the crews that operated spotter aircraft from ships.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Apart from the killing people for money bit, dude lived like a goon 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:By which you mean blundering into a nest of friendly troops at night and dying from a case of blue on blue fire? Grey on grey. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:can any of this thread's many Nordics tell me if anyone around Gustavus Adolphus told him that maybe the whole leading from the front thing was a tad unsafe for a head of state like he gave a poo poo afaik, Pohjolan Leijona by Mirkka Lappalainen states that his great chancellor Axel Oxenstierna was scared shitless of G2A dying, except until the end of his reign when AO had managed to turn Sweden into a early modern state with the help of G2A.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Almost worked for Longstreet. Speaking of Longstreet, a guy I know recently changed the Wikipedia article for the M103 tank to "M103 Longstreet" without any citations. It stayed up for long enough that he figured the joke has run its course and removed the name, at which point some grognard watching the article immediately put it back. It is there to this day. Moral of the story is that Wikipedia is completely worthless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Speaking of Longstreet, a guy I know recently changed the Wikipedia article for the M103 tank to "M103 Longstreet" without any citations. It stayed up for long enough that he figured the joke has run its course and removed the name, at which point some grognard watching the article immediately put it back. It is there to this day. Moral of the story is that Wikipedia is completely worthless. Ahahaha what the gently caress, I thought it had been removed because somebody actually grew a brain and saw an error. I had no idea that guy had removed it on its own, nor that it had been put back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:21
|
|
