|
Here is the follow up to my last post about Somali history. I'll try and write one of these every week or so for the next month. The Rise and Fall of Somali Nationalism On September 9, 1978 the Ethiopian garrison of Jijiga shattered under a barrage of artillery and rockets from Siad Barre’s Somali National Army (SNA). The Ethiopian army retreated in disarray, panicked regulars fleeing the front murdered their own officers and the emergency militias called up to stem the Somali invasion mutinied. Wild talk of joining the opposition and overthrowing the Derg regime raced through the camps. Before order can be restored the government will order airstrikes on its own retreating columns and execute officers scapegoated for the defeat. The victory at Jijiga can be seen as the highwater mark of Somali nationalism. In just three months the SNA occupied 90% of the Ogaden region, a wide arid plain about the size of Nebraska, administered by Ethiopia but inhabited almost exclusively by Somalis. Exploiting the chaos of the Red Terror bloodying Addis Ababa, Siad Barre invaded with 250-344 tanks (mostly T-54/55), 350 apcs, 600-736 artillery and mortars, 40-49 combat aircraft (mostly MiG-21s), 35,000-50,000 army regulars, and tens of thousands of irregular militias and partisans. The ensuing disasters will end of the dream of a greater Somalia. Ironically it is the failure of the Ogaden War, launched to unite the Somali people, that will begin the bloody spiral of insurrection and reprisals that will finally end in the collapse of the Somali state. To understand why Somali will invade a nation with more than six times its population, I think we should take a brief trip back to the origin of colonial rule and the independent state of Somalia. Colonialism to Irredentism Somali nationalism was unknown before the modern era. Populating the dry savannah stretching from the coast of the horn in the north and east to the Ethiopian highlands in the west and then south to the wetter tropical regions of Kenya, the vast majority of Somalis lived as nomadic herders beyond any state authority. Along the coasts lay a string of Sultanates under the tenuous suzerainty of various maritime powers. The city of Mogadishu for example was under the nominal authority of the Sultan of Zanzibar, ruling through a local Somali dynasty. At the turn of the 20th century four empires will divide the horn of Africa between themselves. Lacking wealth or natural resources, European powers were slow to take interest in the region. The French would be the first, securing the port of Djibouti just because it was a convenient coaling station. The UK would occupy the northern towns of the horn, because there they could buy livestock cheaply to supply Aden. Southern Somalis also found themselves under the administration of Britain's Kenya colony. The Italian’s came later, they wanted colonies, any colonies, and there wasn’t much else to take. The fourth empire was Ethiopia, which in 1897 extended its rule over the nomads of the western Ogaden after some deft political maneuvers between them and the British. The borders they set between themselves still define the political contours of the region.  Fig 3: Colonial rule in the horn of Africa. Somalis found themselves split between five territories, the Ethiopian Empire, British Kenya, French Somaliland, British Somaliland, and Italian Somaliland: Up to this period there was little sense of Somali unity, and the expansion of colonial administration met little organized resistance*. While Somalis shared a religion, language, and even a sense of kinship, they put more importance on local identities than any ideal of unity. In 1935 however this started to change. That year Mussolini invaded and conquered Ethiopia. In 1940 the Italians would also occupy British and French Somaliland, creating a new united colony of Italian East Africa. For a brief moment, the lines dividing the Somali people disappeared. And for nomads accustomed to going wherever they pleased, the borders were very unpopular. Further, a new generation of Somalis from the civil administration was increasingly exposed to western nationalistic philosophy and revolutionary theory. In the tumult of war and ideology brought by WWII, Somali nationalism began to take form. After 1941 when Britain ejected Italy from the horn, they had to deal with the problem of thousands of Italian colonists in the liberated territory who resented and resisted their rule. As a counter, the British turned to native Somalis, especially the Somali Youth Club (SYC). The first political party of consequence in what would become modern Somalia, the SYC was stridently nationalist. Above all else they sought a unified, independent Somalia.  Fig 4: Somali majority territory in East Africa The western powers were indifferent to the idea. By 1950 the borders were back in place. Still to satisfy widespread popular agitation, in 1960 the two majority Somali colonies of British and Italian Somaliland were allowed to unify and become the independent Republic of Somalia. Siad Barre and the Ogaden War The new Republic was stridently nationalistic, and immediately began backing Somali separatist movements in neighboring Kenya and Ethiopia. There were even small battles on the northern border with Ethiopia. Somalia’s foreign relations were so bad, in 1964 Ethiopia and Kenya signed a treaty of mutual defense in case of a Somali attack. Grandiose and implausible as it was, the dream of a pan-Somali state was the one thing on which everyone in the Republic agreed. Bogged down by corruption, a tepid economy, accusations of Clannishness, and a persistent regional divide between the former British and Italian Somalilands, the government rapidly lost legitimacy. In 1969 the army will brush SYC aside and install Siad Barre as dictator.  Fig 5: Major General Siad Barre, undated After training in Italy and with Soviet advisors, Barre and many of his fellow officers quickly took to communist theories of development and progress. Upon gaining power they immediately instituted a revolutionary regime and set about enacting what they called “Scientific Socialism.” Mixing nationalism, Marxism, and Islam, African scholar Samuel Decalo describes it as not so much an ideology as a “lexical weapon.” Like many African leaders of his era, Barre was not so much a socialist as he was a modernist. He wanted to transform the old Somalia into a new wealthy modern state, and socialist rhetoric was a convenient framework through which to express this desire. It also brought a massive increase in Soviet military aid. By 1977 the SNA, though small, was well equipped, trained, and professional. And the time was ripe to fulfill the ambitions of a greater Somalia. In the late seventies Ethiopia was in turmoil. Though far more populous and much larger than Somalia, it had suffered its own military coup in 1974, when Emperor Haile Selassie was overthrown by the Derg or “Committee”. Although it had started out non-partisan, the Derg began a descent into revolutionary violence, fighting a vicious campaign to root out opposition in the capital and separatist movements in the northern provinces. In 1977 The Derg armed gangs of paramilitaries to destroy its far-left opponent the All-Ethiopia Socialist Movement. What started as a political power-play rapidly devolved into an uncontrolled orgy of violence and score settling. If Somalia was ever going to fulfill its nationalistic ambitions this was the moment, and Barre would seize the opportunity. The war began with a four pronged attack and had rapid success on almost all fronts. Somali T-55s easily destroyed Ethiopia’s aging M-41s and M-47s, and much of the Ethiopian army was deployed against rebels elsewhere. The native Somalis, long supplied and organized by Barre, rose up to meet the SNA. In only three months Somalia occupied 290,000 km of territory. But soon after the victory of Jijiga, the tide will turn against Barre.  Fig 6: From The Ethiopian Army: From Victory to Collapse, 1977-1991 Despite the chaos in the capital, Ethiopia responded with a massive effort, raising nearly 100,000 irregular militias as a stopgap. Perhaps more importantly, Soviet observers had begun to conclude that, unlike Barre’s rhetorical socialism, Ethiopia was in the middle of a true revolution, a revolution threatened by the Somali attack. Aid to Barre was immediately halted, and the Communist bloc began an enormous support and resupply effort to the beleaguered Derg. Thousands of weapons, ammunition and vehicles were delivered, and more than 1,500 Soviet advisors arrived to oversee operations. Cuba provided about 12-15 thousand soldiers, equipped with T-62 tanks. Further, the rapid advance had strained the Somali supply lines, and Ethiopian Northrop F-5 fighters exacerbated the problem, relentlessly harrying Somali columns crossing the coverless Ogaden plateau. In January the the counter offensive, spearheaded by the Cubans, will began driving the Somalis from Ethiopia. By March of 1978 the SNA was effectively defeated, although a guerilla war will persist until 1980. Furious at what he saw as a Soviet betrayal and looking for a new international sponsor, Barre will disavow communism and turn to the United States to support his regime. Though much of his army withdrew from Ethiopia in good order, Barre left something behind more important than tanks and artillery: legitimacy. His government had been justified through Socialist ideology and the promise to fulfill the pan-Somali dream. Bereft of both, there was little justification left for his rule.  Fig 7: Nationalistic poster produced during Siad Barre’s rule Challengers did not wait long. Only months after the withdrawal, the SNA was roiled when plans for a coup came to light. Most of the conspirators quickly faced the firing squad, but a few escaped back into Ethiopia. Rattled and fearing assassination, Barre removed the bolts from his soldier’s rifles before their presentation before him during the 1981 Independence Day parade. Very soon the erstwhile conspirators will march back into Somalia, backed by a new army equipped and supplied by the Ethiopians. The Somali Salvation Democratic Front will be the first of many groups to take-up arms against Barre, and in his brutal effort to quash the rebels he will level cities, poison wells, and slaughter the people’s cattle. In tens years, the ever spiralling violence will gradually unravel the state. Next week I hope to bring the story back to where we started, with the UN intervention. But first, I’ll stop to look at the social forces that will instigate “tribal warfare,” and the failure of the clientelist patronage system that has so far supported the Barre regime. *The Dervish State and its war with the British Empire is a notable exception, but I'm saving that story for some other time. Squalid fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Feb 29, 2016 |
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 01:13 |
|
|
Fangz posted:If it's a WWII era officer's katana, it's quite likely not *that* legit, honestly. It's made in the traditional way instead of stamped out in a factory like the NCO version and the western-style sword, and has actual ray skin on the grip and eight layers of shims in the guard (the NCO version had a cast aluminum hilt), it's as legit as a WWII piece can be (and may be an older blade put in military fittings, which was common for the really rich officers, put the family heirloom sword in approved fittings and wear it to war; that maker's name is from the 18th century. More likely though, since apprentices took the name of the master who trained then, it's the great-great-etc. grandson of the master smith from 1750).
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 04:30
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
a friend of mine has one of those things, a really nice antique katana with the shittiest possible modern grip etc from the 1920s i hope the writing on it says "pointy end goes that way"
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Squalid posted:My hanzo steel
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Fangz posted:If it's a WWII era officer's katana, it's quite likely not *that* legit, honestly. I'd call it "legit" in the sense that it's a real, no bullshit sword. Even if not a "katana" in the traditional sense, but it's a serious sword manufactured expressly for chopping people up. Not something made of stainless steel that can't cut milk jugs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4I43BWR6q0 chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:don't let the pendulum swing the other way just to get one back on the weebs, real katanas and japanese martial arts are legit You caught my place-holder for the top of the page, check out the much better post I've replaced that with
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Squalid posted:You caught my place-holder for the top of the page, check out the much better post I've replaced that with
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Reminds me of some british lieutenants anecdote of fighting with a sword in the trenches. He's face to face with a german and realizes, oh poo poo I don't know how to fight with a sword and kicks the german in the balls. He then talks about trench warfare weapons. Trench warfare weapons: A club, to club them in the head with. Spikes on a club A sharper club Club on chain Bludgeon Shotgun
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Trench warfare weapons: a crossbow about as long as a person is tall
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Does anybody here have a recommendation on any good books about the WW2 invasion/occupation of Denmark and/or Norway?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:"also the whole snazzy one-liner thing, we do that as well"
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:I'd think it was superseded by marksmanship around the time metallic cartridges became a thing (so it takes 2 seconds instead of 15 to reload) and completely irrelevant (outside of extreme cases as has been mentioned; modern militaries still teach hand-to-hand combat, just in case) around the time every man was issued a bolt-action rifle and could fire as fast as he could shove 5-round clips into it. Working with some of the info from the internet site here and my limited knowledge of Asian moon runes... First two characters look like a somewhat stylized/messy 雲州, which would be an abbreviation for the province Izumo. Is there a faint vertical line below the left most mark on the third kanji? If so it looks like 住, meaning "dwelling in", with the left vertical stroke lost to the hole. So that at least narrows it down a bit. The 4th looks like 大 with the top cut off by the hole. Th 5th character is illegible, but based on size I'm thinking it's only the left side of the character and the rest has faded. Now here's the question- is it possible that there was a 6th character below it which has faded completely? (hard to tell from a picture how bad the rust is) If so, it may be 大明京, Daiminkin, or a descendent of his, based on searching this database for smiths from Izumo and with 大 in their names.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 05:54
|
|
)
|
Ainsley McTree posted:On a subject related to ACW weapons: At what point in the development of firearms did line battles stop happening? Really it depends on what density you define as minimum for a line formation. The British adopted a thin, 2 man thick during the early 19th and retained it up until the Crimea at least. Hell, given the descriptions of the slaughter, line formations may have still been in use during the Russo-Japanese war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Formations were really good for resisting this cavalry thing, too. However, since nobody wanted to get rid of cavalry, formations stayed. How big were the gaps between advancing men in 1914 or how did they advance in general? EDIT: Oooh, I have a question: who used two handed swords/axes/whatever, how, why, and when? What makes it worth it not having a shield? JcDent fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Formations were really good for resisting this cavalry thing, too. However, since nobody wanted to get rid of cavalry, formations stayed. Someone called for VIKING KNOWLEDGE?  We Danes gave name to the Daneax, which was used between 700-1200 ish. It was originally a noble's weapon (though not as popular as the sword), with a light and rather thin blade and a large cutting surface - this made it a rather agile weapon you could block with, but gain a lot more cutting power than a 1H axe. Eventually it evolved into a proper infantryman's weapon, lengthening the haft to about 1.8 metres and a larger cutting blade, like a meat cleaver on a thick pole, which eventually would form the inspiration for the Pollaxe and Halberd, and it's good for much the same things: Gaining distance on your foe, manuevering them from horses by catching them with a backstroke, or just cutting the poo poo out of them with a heavy strike. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
JcDent posted:EDIT: Oooh, I have a question: who used two handed swords/axes/whatever, how, why, and when? What makes it worth it not having a shield? I know that big shields like the iconic "heater" are basically absent from medieval (that is, 15th century) fighting manuals. There are bucklers, and then there are those huge pointy German dueling shields, but the iconic image of a "sword and board" knight just isn't there. A common explanation for this is that the plate harness finally became complete enough that a big shield just didn't add much meaningful protection any more. You might as well bring a pollax and a bigger sword to better deal with the other guy who's also wearing lots of plate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The British adopted a thin, 2 man thick during the early 19th and retained it up until the Crimea at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Well it's never completely irrelevant, since there's always going to be a chance that you'll end up in close quarters where a sword/bayonet comes in real handy if you've got one. It was much more irrelevant around WW1, since between rifles, machine guns, artillery, grenades, and the horrible immobile stalemate of trench warfare there was a drat lot keeping enemy combatants from ever becoming close to each other, but you still get situations like the story of the German Sapper where people are stabbing each other in the trenches. The opposite is actually true for WWI - due to the fact that the infantry became totally reliant on following up artillery bombardments then storming an enemy trench at close quarters, there was talk amongst the British (I don't know about other armies) of downplaying rifle marksmanship training in favour of hand to hand combat and throwing
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Really? Isn't the whole point of the 2-man "thin red line" that its thinner than usual? 3 and 4 man thick lines were the norm in the Napoleonic Wars, the British 2-man line was thinner than other combatant nations. Largely this was due to the fact that the British army could be trained to a higher standard due to its smaller size and the fact that if poo poo went south they just got a ship and sailed back for blighty. I think the French might have been able to pull off 2 man thick lines at some point as well, probably around 1805. There was complaining from both Napoleon and Wellington that they had to go back to 4 man thick lines for Waterloo, because they didn't have the time to train their armies back to the proper standard. That, and the fact that a lot of the competent soldiers were dead at that point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Really? Isn't the whole point of the 2-man "thin red line" that its thinner than usual? The 'thin red line' thing specifically refers to an action in the Crimean War - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Red_Line_%28Battle_of_Balaclava%29 The point wasn't that it was thinner than anyone else's line at the time so much as that any line of infantry tooling around on its own looks pretty insignificant compared to the fuckton of cavalry charging it. Normally they'd form a square but that would have meant letting the Russian cavalry go past and gently caress up the British camp followers; and if they'd tried this during the Napoleonic Wars I imagine the cavalry would have massacred them, but this is an early indication of how more modern weapons are going to make cavalry charges into infantry obsolete.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
Didn't the Thin Red Line at Balaclava also work because the Russian officer thought it was a trap and tried breaking off when it was too late? By which point the formation becomes a mess, men getting tangled and they're running away along the path they were advancing down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Trench warfare weapons: One of these is utterly unfitting a man fighting in the civilized wars of the early 20th century You'll never guess which one
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 12:05
|
|
|
shotguns are for cowards
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
fite me 1 on 1 irl
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:One of these is utterly unfitting a man fighting in the civilized wars of the early 20th century Germany filed a protest against the US' use of the shotgun like 2 months ahead of the end of the war and the US guy handling those things was like "lol nope"
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:3 and 4 man thick lines were the norm in the Napoleonic Wars, the British 2-man line was thinner than other combatant nations. Largely this was due to the fact that the British army could be trained to a higher standard due to its smaller size and the fact that if poo poo went south they just got a ship and sailed back for blighty. I think the French might have been able to pull off 2 man thick lines at some point as well, probably around 1805. I just remembered. Marshal Ney, the one that led the French Cavalry at Waterloo wrote a book on infantry tactics during one of his campaigns. He recommended three or four ranks of infantry, but used two himself at times. I suppose it's a question of weather or not you are expecting a protracted firefight or hand-to-hand. Napoleon used Columns extensively, but he closed to hand to hand very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:The 'thin red line' thing specifically refers to an action in the Crimean War - quote:Campbell formed the 93rd into a line two deep — the "thin red line". Convention dictated that the line should be four deep.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:What on earth did you think I thought it was referring to? From your link: In reference to '3 and 4 man thick lines were the norm in the Napoleonic Wars, the British 2-man line was thinner than other combatant nations' - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yZ9fDj2LPxMC&pg=PT13&lpg=PT13 There was nothing unusual in the British Army of that time in forming two-deep if you were going to form line in the first place, that's just Wikipedia being crap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Somewhere between Frederick the Great and Napoleon it became apparent to a large number of military instutitons on the continent that a 3-deep line was a bad idea in a protracted firefight because anywhere between 1/3-1/2 of casualties in the front line could be attibutable to the people in the third line firing blindly into their backs (yes the smoke on a Napoleonic battlefield really did get that thick). You'd go four deep if you needed to be mobile but were expecting cavalry (what would happen is the last two lines would about face and you'd have an instant-square). A whole host of other variations were possible and happened depending on a mix of what the situation called for, what the troops were capable of, and how innovative the General on the spot was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
100 Years Ago In the skies over Verdun the new Nieuport 11 fighter is already having a major impact on the fighting; the French are now fielding dedicated fighter escadrilles for the first time. The German Navy tries to send out another commerce raider, but this one gets run to ground in the North Sea; Grigoris Balakian spends a nervous night in Iskilip; Edward Mousley finds a silver lining to his many rainclouds at Kut; and Evelyn Southwell angles for his promotion to Captain at the expense of his men's rest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
RE:linechat. The british manual of arms gave a three man deep formation as the official doctrine. But most of the time british battalions in the peninsula where understrength and they prioritized width. Re: waterloo the battlefield was not very wide, and the french had more heavy cavalry, so the british deployed four deep so the could form square faster. One of the major reasons to use a line formation is command and control is a lot easier in a line formation. One of the things a lot of nations did was use the 3rd line as a tactical reserve. Some armies basicly used the 3rd line as skirmishers, two be put forward in favorable circumstances vuk83 fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Well it's never completely irrelevant, since there's always going to be a chance that you'll end up in close quarters where a sword/bayonet comes in real handy if you've got one. gently caress, it still happens on rare occasions today. Look up Samuel Toloza. Long story short, he's a Salvadorian who's unit got ambushed in Iraq. He was out of ammo or something and bum rushed a bunch of insurgents and stabbed the poo poo out of them with a pocket knife. From a bit back, but I wasn't on the internet much over the weekend: HEY GAL posted:i know that muskets were used as melee weapons a lot of the time in the 17th century--any insights into what that would have looked like for real at the time, given the construction of these weapons?  That's the official US Military approved way to smash a dude's skull with the non-shooting end of your gun, ca. WW1. Since guns have had metal buttplates for centuries by that point I suspect it was just them making official something that your average soldier who didn't want to break his gun figured out a long damned time ago. That said, it's going to vary for your guys depending on the actual shape of the gun. THAT said, from what I can see just looking at pictures of matchlocks online it looks like the broad butt with a narrow wrist that you see today was pretty well developed by then, so I imagine the same stresses that make whacking someone with it the way those Austro-Hungarians are practicing ill advisable were around and observed then. Plus, I would imagine that guns would be a lot more valuable in your era than in the 20th century. Breaking your piece by hitting a guy with it just seems even more ill-advised back then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
This is what the US military currently teaches wrt buttstroking motherfuckers Also just in general breaking your rifle isn't a particularly big deal, especially if you do it on a motherfuckers face.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:I just remembered. Marshal Ney, the one that led the French Cavalry at Waterloo wrote a book on infantry tactics during one of his campaigns. He recommended three or four ranks of infantry, but used two himself at times. I suppose it's a question of weather or not you are expecting a protracted firefight or hand-to-hand. Napoleon used Columns extensively, but he closed to hand to hand very quickly. The whole "French fight in Column, British fight in Line" thing is a myth. There is no evidence that it was ever the intention of French commanders to engage enemy formations while still in column, and the French manual of arms dictated that column would be used to move up to the enemy at which point the infantry would deploy into line. A lot of the reason for the myth is that famous encounters where column met line, such as the Imperial Guard vs the British at Waterloo, happened by accident where the French got surprised before they could deploy properly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:gently caress, it still happens on rare occasions today. Look up Samuel Toloza. Oh, yeah, I remember that, this was the accompanying photo in the news article I saw: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Oh, yeah, I remember that, this was the accompanying photo in the news article I saw:  + 
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:The whole "French fight in Column, British fight in Line" thing is a myth. There is no evidence that it was ever the intention of French commanders to engage enemy formations while still in column, and the French manual of arms dictated that column would be used to move up to the enemy at which point the infantry would deploy into line. A lot of the reason for the myth is that famous encounters where column met line, such as the Imperial Guard vs the British at Waterloo, happened by accident where the French got surprised before they could deploy properly. Also wellington was master of the reverse slope defense, so attacking french columns always saw the british lines to late to deploy into line.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Wasn't the French plan in the Revolutionary Wars to close to bayonet fighting as far as possible? I thought this was something that Napoleon had continued, hence the column formation, which is better for bayonet charges than a line.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:That said, it's going to vary for your guys depending on the actual shape of the gun. THAT said, from what I can see just looking at pictures of matchlocks online it looks like the broad butt with a narrow wrist that you see today was pretty well developed by then...
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 01:13 |
|
Hazzard posted:Wasn't the French plan in the Revolutionary Wars to close to bayonet fighting as far as possible? I thought this was something that Napoleon had continued, hence the column formation, which is better for bayonet charges than a line. The soldiers of the Napoleon were trained to fight in skirmish order as well as two lines and other non column formations. Problem was, it takes a while to drill and train a good soldier and when they have a nasty habit of dying or not being trained enough to be promoted and pass on what they learned what with being dead your going to have to have a lot less options. Also, it doesn't matter how well you drill your soldiers in marching in neat lines across rough terrain and in the confusion of battle a column can sometimes unintentionally happen.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:45
|
|
