|
So I would like to hear about warfare in Africa during the Slave trade centuries. I know that slavers generally allied with the largest nations in West Africa, who would capture and sell slaves from other, smaller tribes. Are there any good documents on how this actually happened and looked like? I would also love to hear about the Amazons of Benin. They were a bunch of women, the wives of the king IIRC, who were trained in warfare in the 18th and 19th century. They were apparently incredibly effective at taking down French colonization forces. Are there any first hand sources about how they were trained and fought?
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
Could you go a bit more into Joffre's poo poo canning/promotions? I'm finishing up Guns of August right now, and Joffre seems like a complete moron who couldn't find a competent leader if his life depended on it. He was apparently getting rid of the people who realized that defensive warfare was supreme at the time for à la baionette! idiots. Haven't really studied WWI much, so I'm wondering how Joffre actually turned out.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I think the implication of Joffre's detractors was that if he wasn't so married Plan 17, or if he'd listened to the Belgian King, or if he'd listened to Lanrezac, or if indeed it was Gallieni that was in charge, the laconic calm and the stoic defensive stand leading up to and during the Battle of the Marne would not have been necessary because the Germans would not have been able to outflank the French left-wing so badly in the first place. Yeah, this is what I was reading into his actions. Sure, he was clam and collected, but he was wedded to la cult de l'offensive so his strategic actions were generally the wrong things to do. I'm guessing he muddled through mostly because the Germans were having the same problems of A)Keeping the Schedule and B)Seeing franc-tireurs needing to be shot everywhere. Meanwhile, Lanrezac and Gallieni were making (or trying to make at least) defenses in depth with machine gun and artillery strongpoints and actually listening to the Belgians.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
The US was able to massively increase trade in weapons, food and other supplies with the Allies, one of the major reasons that they weren't starving in the trenches like the Germans were. Germany was pretty much doomed from the start once the UK stopped all supplies from going into the central continent; France and the UK were majorly propped up in the long run by the US even before we entered. The entire northern half of France with significant strategic resources were taken by Germany in the Frontiers after all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
They don't lump the fights over Finland, Poland, etc into the Great Patriotic War? I guess I can see that, as they were the aggressors and weren't being genocided at the time, but the Winter War (and I'd argue the Spanish Civil) were basically the same conflict more or less.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Bad at their jobs I can understand. But I don't see how people can be so badly ignorant today in a first world country. The amount of resources being constantly expended on various intelligence agencies gathering information makes it seem like there's no excuse for being so ignorant, the way there was even during the early 20th century, let alone prior to that. But I guess not. Never underestimate the stupidity of politicians. And the thing about the intelligence services is that they are ordered around by the politicians. If they are looking for Black Gay Hitler in Argentina's cyborg army, then they are more likely to miss out on the actual threats to the nation. IIRC, the Bush shift away from Bin Laden once he took office is one reason that the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen. The Alphabet soup all knew that an attack was coming, but weren't given the resources to follow up on it anymore. So basically, blame bureaucracy. Politicians are dumb, their appointees are hated and the competent lifers are ignored/put on stupid poo poo for making their bosses look bad.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Unprompted, I'd like to recommend an article on the very painfully understudied topic of African wars; this link presents an excellent overview of continuity of indigenous tactical / strategic thought between cca 16th century Sierra Leone and the 20th century conflict: This was an interesting paper, but I'm not sure I completely understood it. Either because of the author's style of writing, which doesn't seem very clear to me, and/or a lack of knowledge of the wars described, I didn't quite catch his argument. It seems like he was saying the 'primitive' magic came about as Western powers stamped down on guerrilla fighting techniques (such as wearing camouflage and hiding towns in the forests), which re-emerged over time as JuJu as people became more desperate to help themselves without being to do the actual techniques; the people remembered that one slaver was well-known for being able to travel quickly, but forgot that this was because he was the only one able to use the roads thanks to being heavily armed, so attributed it to magic once the next cycle of wars started a generation or two later. Did I catch this correctly?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
Yep. Nathanial Greene was a great General who knew how to run a campaign well. He never really won anything, but he was able to run around the British armies in the area slowly whittling them down to the point where they had to retreat up north rather than continue taking casualties. Its where my town's name comes from, too: Green(e)sboro. Natty Greene's pub is also one of the better brew-pubs in the mid-Atlantic.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:Holy poo poo, you live in Greensboro too? Do you go to UNCG? Nah, I went to Elon. Grew up in Greensboro. But not currently there, finishing up Peace Corps service in Africa. Really, really looking forward to pints of beer and burgers in Natty Greenes. Its basically the one good part of GSO.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
You would probably see them in recon roles, for sure, and defensive uses where it is easier to keep them unhacked and not shot at. They can also stay on station longer. Offensives would continue to be cruise missiles and manned missions, because people can figure out how to get through defenses better.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:They introduced the flintlock as "up time" knowledge which is probably very possible at that time period as snaphances were made. They did have some percussion caps at that point in time when invading poland but in limited availability and mostly for breech loader sharps which may be stretching the accelerated technology a bit. Yeah, that is at least somewhat believable. A lot of the techniques existed or were close to existing, and all they would really have needed to do was to show the guys how to build the stuff more efficiently. Whats crazy is David Weber's series going from triremes to ironclads in 10 years.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Japan had the twin problems of not having a good supply of technically skilled recruits, making training harder and more expensive, and not having a reliably large supply of guys making a career out of the navy, most people just going in for a short period and leaving. Wait, so how exactly did the IJN have a lack of good career seamen? That seems to be exactly the opposite of what you would expect from an island nation. The UK has a long history of idolizing good sailors, for example. What policies/history stopped them from building up a good career officer corps in the navy; from my small knowledge of Japan pre-WWII, I am assuming backbiting from the Japanese army?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
So after reading about Churchill's escapades in this thread, does history actually look kindly back on him, or do they mostly see him as the blowhard, glory-seeking, somewhat incompetent politician seen in the thread?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Speaking of which, she reminded me to post this picture for you, straight from WW1 While I'm hoping it was used by commandoes/recon for night raids, I'm guessing it is probably something for mundane stuff like putting down smoke or something?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Unequivocally Slavery. Nothing about the Confederacy or US politics in the decades leading up to the civil war makes sense unless you realise that the Slavery issue was at the core of all tension. Basically. When people say 'state's rights!', they generally don't take the next step; 'state's rights!' to what? Once you ask that question, the answer is 100% slavery. If you look at the Confederate constitution, it's basically the US Constitution with a bunch of white people are better and slaves are slaves thrown in. And then you get stuff like the Cornerstone Speech. Vice President of the Confederacy posted:Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Well, to be fair, how many people actually understand 'jet' is meant for the type of airplane engine, rather than just a general word for airplane? Especially from an older person born before they were a thing with limited education.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Azran posted:What would be the worst case of friendly fire in recorded history? I know it is a broad question, but it is purposefully so. They dropped a nuke on a small town in North Carolina?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:There was a genuine belief that most plantation owners took care of their slaves, in a paternal kind of way, and needed to because black people were childlike and couldn't take care of themselves (see also the White Man's Burden for the British imperialist take on this). They also argued that slaves were better off on the plantation than as free poor people, because look how bad poor people had it in the mills in the North and Britain (and, disturbingly, in some cases they might even have been right about that - life as a working class white person was pretty poo poo in the Victoria era, let alone being black and dealing with worldwide casual racism on top of that). You speak like this is a thing in the past. It isn't, here in the South. In fact, I remember a major politician (I think a congressman?) getting caught saying this in a private speech to donors a few years ago. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
Tias posted:As I've mentioned before, there was actually a law passed that made it legal for officers in the RDA to serve in the SS on the eastern front What about killing commie bastards do you not understand, comrade? 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I petition to replace gothchat (vampires and misery) with gothchat (Roman immigrants). Please explain: What if the goths were gay and black? Would the Romans still fall due to the constant pressure of warfare with new tribes, or would they have let them into their orgies and remade a new black homosexual golden age? 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Question: I think it was Napoleon that first said it? 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:I think this actually happened in World War 1. (See. Gallipoli) So, uh, why did they land at Gallipoli instead of just putting troops ashore in a friendly neighbor, like Palestine, and walking through the peninsula towards Ankara and Istanbul?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Hegel, did the pikemen in front get paid more or allowed to the best loot after a battle? What drove them to be in front?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:It's quite tiring. It weighs about twelve pounds, I think? I was shaking the night after my first day. Why do you think these guys were into beer so much? It was to dull the muscle pain. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I'm still not super sure how long it took them to invent the bayonet in the first place. People mention the word in the mid 1600s, but it's unclear what it refers to. The timeline that we know about is as follows: By the 1680s we have the plug bayonet, the drawbacks of which are obvious. Some French dude invents the socket bayonet in the late 70s and it isn't widely used. The Germans and the English start using it widely after 97, and in '03 the French invent a thing that keeps them from falling off the muskets by accident. About 20 years isn't that long a time, the question is when it was invented to begin with. Which I don't know. So how do you get a plug bayonet out of your musket? Just pull really hard on the few not-sharp bits?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
True freedom fighters then!  
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
All of president Andrew Jackson's actions were planned and systematic enough to be called "true" genocide rather than de facto genocide.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I'd watch a movie soley based on the hippo part. Boy do I have a military animal story for you. You see, there once was a bear in Eastern Europe...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Come
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I think I'm too late, I just got home and all the spots are taken! We are supposed to be getting reinforcements soonish, once the maneuvers settle down. Then you will be able to take part in the trenches.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Not actually intelligence! Just assumptions from the first post by Grey saying that we will move onto the trenches once things settle down. Which presumably means Korps get switched out for fresh units on both sides.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Ask Us About Military History: Remove balls to fire blanks 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Jesus Chr--- What they said.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:If the truth becomes known then the British will have to pay reparations for both World War 1 and World War 2. Albion perfide! 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Grant and Sherman are unironically still the most under-appreciated generals of that war. Yep. What I normally hear down here in the South that is "Grant was a drunken, corrupt butcher who got his soldiers killed by blundering around like a moron. He lucked himself into winning.  " and "Sherman was a monstrous butcher who liked to kill civilians for the fun of it. He has bloody hands! "
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:And why wouldn't it be even more embarrassing for your side that you were beaten up by an apparently incompetent drunk.  You have no idea how happy I was once I got out of high school. This kind of poo poo was taught by history teachers. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Would require an attention span not measured in picoseconds. Full brokeback mountain. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Which is one reason why I'm pretty surprised nobody made a good modern 30yw movie. Just tell an aspiring HBO writer about the codpieces, political intrigue and drunken brawls and it'll get made. "Boardwalk Empire meets Game of Thrones with huge hats. Sexposition easy to do naturally thanks to all the prostitution."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
my dad posted:I don't think anything beats the Rectorotor.  I'll take two, good sir
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
Riso posted:What won the Russians the war was not steel or coal production, because Germany outproduced the Soviets 4:1. What won them the war was ruthless efficiency and pragmatism in their production and loads of lend-lease. How did lend-lease work with Russia anyways? You can't go through Europe because of Germany and Finland, and the Italian navy was in the Med. until, what, 1943? And Japan held onto the Pacific routes. Did the US shop through the Caucuses mountains via Indian ports or go through Kamchatka?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 21:21
|
|