|
Dommolus Magnus posted:No, not all of Europe! A single village full of plucky Gallians managed to resist roman occupation. 
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:What are some decisions or actions that were forestalled by the death of a historical figure? It is said the death of of Ögedei saved central Europe from the Mongols, as they had just finished demolishing the Hungarians. His death meant that Subutai had to return to Mongolia for the election of a new Khan and preventing him from finishing the job in Europe. How much of this is true, I can't say for sure. Early-European/Mongol history is not my specialty but perhaps another Goon can elaborate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:What are some decisions or actions that were forestalled by the death of a historical figure? One of the many fun "what-ifs" Civil War historians and buffs toss about is if this or that man hadn't been killed, what would have changed? Stonewall Jackson's the one that usually comes up first, but for my money it's more interesting to speculate whether if Albert Sidney Johnston hadn't bought it at Shiloh, could the Confederate western armies been able to hold back Grant and keep Vicksburg longer than they did? For my money, I don't see any one person's life or death changing the outcome of the war, but I could see it lasting longer than it did if certain players hadn't died when they did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
The trivial response is, of course, Adolf Hitler, whose death ended the regime and with it the war in Europe. And his many escaped assassination attempts, which would have done effectively the same sooner. Hell, the 1939 one probably would have left him with a fairly positive image in history's pages, rather than as the symbol of all things wretched about humanity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
I'm no expert, but wasn't the South always doomed, simply because it was poorer and smaller? At best the war could've lasted a bit longer, but there was never any question about the outcome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:The trivial response is, of course, Adolf Hitler, whose death ended the regime and with it the war in Europe. And his many escaped assassination attempts, which would have done effectively the same sooner. Hell, the 1939 one probably would have left him with a fairly positive image in history's pages, rather than as the symbol of all things wretched about humanity. The brits actually scrapped an assassination attempt on Hitler because they realized his death would mean that someone competent could take over and thusly making the war last longer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Scandinavia not so much though. There's obviously some post-Roman influence, but I don't think we ever considered ourselves as heirs to Rome in any real sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:The kings of Denmark nearly bankrupted the state because they were insecure about not being Roman lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Can you give an example? In any case, most of them were French-speaking Germans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I'm no expert, but wasn't the South always doomed, simply because it was poorer and smaller? At best the war could've lasted a bit longer, but there was never any question about the outcome. There are two very important facets to this. 1. The south was always doomed. 2. A lot of the reason the South was always doomed is that the South thought it was going to win, easily, by virtue of their status as the Last Bastion of English Chivalry, Which Of Course The English Would Ride To The Aid Of, Crushing The Uppity Yankee Commoners. The Confederacy's grand strategy going into the war was "we just have to hold out long enough for the English to blockade Union ports, then the North will be crippled economically and lose their will to fight." That the Union would also have diplomats, and were also producing exports that England wanted, and that those diplomats could point out that if the Confederacy went down England would be the biggest cotton-producer in the world, were never considered by the Confederate hierarchy. So when in the fullness of time it became clear that England did not view the Confederacy as the Last Bastion of Chivalry Across the Water, but rather as a bunch of slavemongers with delusions of grandeur whose continued existence stood between them and a lot of money, Confederate Grand Strategy went from "hold out long enough and we win" to the word "UH." This is most of where the Lost Cause mythos ends up coming from: "we took a noble stand" is a much better excuse for why your fathers died than "your leaders picked a fight assuming someone else would fight it for them, and were unpleasantly surprised when they said nah."
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:There are two very important facets to this. This is on point but of course as with everything with diplomacy, it was more complicated. Even at the height of tensions between the Northern US and Britain during the trent affair, neither side wanted war. The major overseas powers in Europe at the time, Britain and France, had absolutely 0% interest in war with the united states during this time period, especially if their "Allies" were going to be the confederates. Both Britain and France had too much trade invested in the Northern States to risk disruption, cotton be damned. Though it can be argued that the disruption in cotton from the war, which the European powers were able to absorb, did spur their interest in Egypt, which eventually led to the European states funding more money to the Suez canal project...which the British ended up just taking for themselves after bombing Alexandria. Cotton supply issues solved!  But your point still stands, Confederate diplomacy was dogshit. If I remember right, they ended up kicking out all the British/French diplomats at some point anyway because they got tired of Europeans telling them to stop slavery (a little ironic considering European adventures in the colonies but I digress) Solaris 2.0 fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Feb 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Scandinavia not so much though. There's obviously some post-Roman influence, but I don't think we ever considered ourselves as heirs to Rome in any real sense. Scandanavia is absolutely awash in ancient Roman goods and coins, which is evidence of some sort of constant commercial, and possibly cultural, and possibly political interaction. The Amber Road is a link between the Baltic and Mediterranean worlds that goes back to prehistory. Don't forget the strong bonds between Scandanavia and the later Romans either, forged in service to the Emperor in Miklagard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Scandanavia is absolutely awash in ancient Roman goods and coins, which is evidence of some sort of constant commercial, and possibly cultural, and possibly political interaction. The Amber Road is a link between the Baltic and Mediterranean worlds that goes back to prehistory. Don't forget the strong bonds between Scandanavia and the later Romans either, forged in service to the Emperor in Miklagard. jBrereton posted:Yeah Christian VII was renowned for loving to speak Latin and having things made out to be much more Roman (which may have been a part of the absolute monarchs' campaign to remove Roman Catholicism from the state? idk I just remember seeing a bunch of stuff about him at the national museum in Copenhagen a while ago)
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Dommolus Magnus posted:No, not all of Europe! A single village full of plucky Gallians managed to resist roman occupation. yeah but russkies see themselves as heirs to the theocratic oriental despotate rome not the civic virtue republican rome
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I'm not denying a connection, but you're not a successor of Rome or whatever just because you traded with them, or some of your countrymen hung out among their non-fallen brethren. (And it's not like the Eastern Roman Empire is really treated as a predecessor to Western European states anyway.) Your definition of Roman successor state is going to include basically nobody then. Also you're downplaying just how much Roman control there was over certain areas of Scandanavia, especially Jutland.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Your definition of Roman successor state is going to include basically nobody then. Also you're downplaying just how much Roman control there was over certain areas of Scandanavia, especially Jutland.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:There are two very important facets to this. Solaris 2.0 posted:This is on point but of course as with everything with diplomacy, it was more complicated. Even at the height of tensions between the Northern US and Britain during the trent affair, neither side wanted war. The major overseas powers in Europe at the time, Britain and France, had absolutely 0% interest in war with the united states during this time period, especially if their "Allies" were going to be the confederates. Both Britain and France had too much trade invested in the Northern States to risk disruption, cotton be damned. Though it can be argued that the disruption in cotton from the war, which the European powers were able to absorb, did spur their interest in Egypt, which eventually led to the European states funding more money to the Suez canal project...which the British ended up just taking for themselves after bombing Alexandria. Cotton supply issues solved! I agree with both these posts, and didn't want to imply that there was ever any real chance the Confederates wouldn't have gotten stomped right into oblivion sooner or later. I go back and forth on whether Sherman's or Sam Houston's warning to the South during the secession crisis is the better version of "look you goddamn idiots, do you even know how many Yankees there are and how many loving guns they make in a year? Pick this fight and you might get a good hit or two in but you'll still end up a greasy stain on the pavement once they're finished with you." It's also hilarious just how bad at diplomacy the Confederates were, and how up their own asses were the commissioners they sent to London and Paris, so certain that all they needed to do to get an intervention was ask for it/lean on the power of King Cotton.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Sherman's or Sam Houston's warning to the South during the secession crisis I'd like to read them. Is there an online source?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Why are the people most oppressed by despotic governments the most likely to support the principles behind despotic governance? Democratic/liberal values require social trust and a detente between various elements of society. When you don't have that and you have no expectation of a non-Red-In-Tooth society then you won't support abstract uncertain values and instead support principles that you could use to make you the predator and not the prey.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:Around when did society turn from the enjoyment of bloodsport like Gladiators to shunning it? I assume the rise of modern religions moved it. Digging this one up. Gradually it just kind of lost popularity and the nature of the games kind of changed. You should also consider that for much of the history of the Roman empire chariot races were more important than gladiatorial combat and at least just as dangerous, even more so because of rabid fans. Gladiatorial games themselves were rarely to the death when between gladiators and also often involved fighters battling animals such as lions and bulls, which eventually became more common and popular than gladiators fighting each other or condemned prisoners and such. Ever wondered why bullfighting arenas look like they do?  I'm not so sure modern religions had that much to do with it, bullfighting still exists in Spain, and so-called "animal hunts" were arranged in Italy at least during Odoacer's and Theoderic's reigns according to what I have read. You could also perhaps count in the dwindling supply of war captives for new slaves, and settlement patterns becoming more rural and pastoral, with the old domestic and urban slavery basically dying off in much of Europe (semi-free peasants living under systems that could be described as serfdom seemed to be much more productive and efficient). Randarkman fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I'm no expert, but wasn't the South always doomed, simply because it was poorer and smaller? At best the war could've lasted a bit longer, but there was never any question about the outcome. In terms of a total war that continues until one side's utter destruction? Sure. But those types of wars are the exception, not the rule. The Confederacy didn't have to crush the Union's armies and invade Washington DC, they just had to make the war expensive and difficult enough that the North decided it wasn't worth it - much as the American colonists had done back during the Revolution. Underestimating the other side's political will to wage war is a factor in quite a few failed wars, though in the Confederacy's case it didn't help that they also badly misread the European powers' will to interfere and also made a number of diplomatic missteps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Total war was on the table from the very beginning, though. Lincoln proved he had no qualms with doing whatever it took. Look at his actions toward civilians in Baltimore and Maryland, even before the first battles. By the summer of 1861 Lincoln had made it 100% clear that he didn't care about the rule of law or sparing non-combatants. He was going to do what had to be done to bring the rebellion to an end. He had the will and he had people in his administration who could help him get it done. The only way the Civil War would have resulted in a Southern "political" victory is if Lincoln wasn't the President and if that was the case it never would have started in the first place. Also McClellan was never winning in 1864. Just not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Not only did Britain and France have an alternative to cotton exports, but both of their populations were virulently hostile to the Confederacy itself. Also, France was already spread quite thin at that point, any support they would give to the confederacy would have to be mostly "moral" and come at the cost of possible internal revolt. It was terrible idea for either one of them to get seriously involved. Another factor was the finances of the Confederacy were a complete mess, and the Confederate dollar was rapidly devaluing as early as 1862. The Confederate Constitution itself was completely unworkable, especially when the Anaconda strategy especially undercut its entire economic rationale (cotton exports). Basically, once it became clear the war was going to be more than a couple of skirmishes, the Confederacy was completely screwed both economically and militarily. Basically, the Confederacy's only chance was the Union coming to some some of settlement before Fort Sumter and that in all likelihood wasn't going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Bates posted:I'd like to read them. Is there an online source? Here are the two I'm thinking of (both from 1860): William T. Sherman posted:You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with.* At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail. Sam Houston posted:Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South. *Sherman was as good at metaphorical burns as he was at literal ones. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Has anyone read anything good about French colonialims in sub-saharan Africa, or anything good about 19th century colonialism? I was trying to look up the French campaigns that put places like Mali and Niger under their control and there wasn't much on wikipedia, especially considering there seemed to have been several big battles and conquests over many thousands of miles in a relatively short time frame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Has anyone read anything good about French colonialims in sub-saharan Africa, or anything good about 19th century colonialism? I was trying to look up the French campaigns that put places like Mali and Niger under their control and there wasn't much on wikipedia, especially considering there seemed to have been several big battles and conquests over many thousands of miles in a relatively short time frame. I can't think of any French stuff offhand, but I've got one on Germany's misadventures in Africa you might want to check out. It's not exclusively focused on colonialism, but nevertheless I always recommend is Isabel Hull's Absolute Destruction: Military Culture and the Practices of War in Imperial Germany. While focusing on Germany militarism, it uses military and colonial policy during the Herero-Nama Revolt in German Southwest Africa as a major example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:What were the biggest factors that stopped the Russians from winning the space race? You got stupid non-answers to this question so I'll return to it. Sergei Korolev, father of the Russian manned space program, died in 1966. With him the best chance for solving the engine problems that plagued Soviet prototype moon rockets died as well. The Soviets also couldn't afford to spend as much as the US did on the Apollo project. At one point the Apollo program consumed 1% of US GDP. That level of expenditure would have been about 2% of USSR GDP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:What are some decisions or actions that were forestalled by the death of a historical figure? Timur the Lame's invasion of Ming China that never happened. He was preparing the invasion for the coming summer season when he fell ill and died. He probably would have succeeded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I can't think of any French stuff offhand, but I've got one on Germany's misadventures in Africa you might want to check out. It's not exclusively focused on colonialism, but nevertheless I always recommend is Isabel Hull's Absolute Destruction: Military Culture and the Practices of War in Imperial Germany. While focusing on Germany militarism, it uses military and colonial policy during the Herero-Nama Revolt in German Southwest Africa as a major example. Thanks, I was also considering reading King Leopold's Ghost although for some reason I'm especially interested in French history, maybe because it seems to be covered so poorly in American popular history. I'm just really curious how European colonial powers went into places that maybe before hadn't had any government at all and built a modern state, generally in very little time. Like the Belgian Congo though anything about the Herero-Nama revolt has got to be depressing, although otherwise it sounds much like what I'm looking for
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Hell, the 1939 one probably would have left him with a fairly positive image in history's pages, rather than as the symbol of all things wretched about humanity. I'm genuinely curious why you would think that considering that by 1939 Hitler had created the Nuremberg Laws, burned books in nationwide bonfires and executed people within his own party. By 1939 he was a full blown evil dictator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:I'm genuinely curious why you would think that considering that by 1939 Hitler had created the Nuremberg Laws, burned books in nationwide bonfires and executed people within his own party. By 1939 he was a full blown evil dictator. That stuff had not yet overshadowed what appeared to be his domestic and foreign policy triumphs. To casual, uninformed observation, he'd revived a dead economy seemingly overnight,* reunited a fractured German people,** made good the humiliations of 1918, and made Germany great again. That he'd had to bully some people about and knock the Jews around to do it didn't seem that big a deal to a lot of people both in Germany and elsewhere, particularly in an era when authoritarian states were about as appealing as they've ever been, and liberal, capitalist democracy was at one of its low points. *That he'd built a paper tiger that could only continue via expropriation was not yet apparent, and that a lot of what he took credit for was set in motion by von Schliecher got left out of the telling. **Including of course those who'd never actually been part of Germany proper and hadn't, prior to 1938 or so, displayed much interest in joining it. Squalid posted:Like the Belgian Congo though anything about the Herero-Nama revolt has got to be depressing, although otherwise it sounds much like what I'm looking for Oh is it ever. But it's also interesting in the sense of how familiar it is with things the German military does later on in Eastern Europe, particularly given that such luminaries as Hermann Goering's father was present during the genocide of the Herero. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:That stuff had not yet overshadowed what appeared to be his domestic and foreign policy triumphs. To casual, uninformed observation, he'd revived a dead economy seemingly overnight,* reunited a fractured German people,** made good the humiliations of 1918, and made Germany great again. That he'd had to bully some people about and knock the Jews around to do it didn't seem that big a deal to a lot of people both in Germany and elsewhere, particularly in an era when authoritarian states were about as appealing as they've ever been, and liberal, capitalist democracy was at one of its low points. Ignoring that even his contemporaries weren't crazy about him (he almost lost the summer olympics because of his anti-semitic policies, there's also this poem from 1936: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dare_not_to_sleep) I still fail to see why history would regard him in a positive light had he been killed in 1939.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Ignoring that even his contemporaries weren't crazy about him (he almost lost the summer olympics because of his anti-semitic policies, there's also this poem from 1936: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dare_not_to_sleep) I still fail to see why history would regard him in a positive light had he been killed in 1939. History would have forgotten him, like so many other rear end in a top hat leaders who never did anything that really affected other countries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:History would have forgotten him, like so many other rear end in a top hat leaders who never did anything that really affected other countries. See: The Polish government in 1939, held up as a bastion of democracy, one of the most anti-Semitic countries in Europe and hardly democratic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:History would have forgotten him, like so many other rear end in a top hat leaders who never did anything that really affected other countries. Admittedly Germany by 1939 had regained its footing and while its military expenditure wasn't sustainable, it most likely would have dominated Central Europe if the war hadn't happened. If anything one of the more troublesome scenarios was simply a stable Nazi Germany simply slowly consolidated power by politically influencing governments and/or forcing them to cede territory while the allies more or less slept on the job. Hell, you could say that is Putin's strategy at the moment, and it is working really well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Admittedly Germany by 1939 had regained its footing and while its military expenditure wasn't sustainable, it most likely would have dominated Central Europe if the war hadn't happened. Isn't t this a myth that was proven not true? I'm currently reading Wages of Destruction and, while I'm only a few chapters in, Goons over in the milhist thread have stated it proves this was all propoganda fed during the cold war by former members of the military/government Essentially. Hitler's Generals wanted to wait until 1942-43 before launching a war to build up, especially their navy. However Hitler HAD to launch the war in 1939 because the Nazi economy was a paper tiger built up by propaganda. It was either launch the war now and steal wealth from central Europe, or watch the economy implode.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:Isn't t this a myth that was proven not true? I'm currently reading Wages of Destruction and, while I'm only a few chapters in, Goons over in the milhist thread have stated it proves this was all propoganda fed during the cold war by former members of the military/government This is basically correct, but the point is that to outside observers, it appeared that Hitler had pulled off a miracle somehow using only his will to make it all happen, thus if he had gotten capped in 1939 odds are there'd be at least a minority opinion amongst German historians that argued his methods were extreme and in parts regrettable, but necessary for German rebirth (and that the next guy botched things which is why the economy collapsed, presumably). This is of course the problem when playing with countefactuals like this. We start throwing in "presumablys" like I just did and with enough you can make anything seem plausible. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:Isn't t this a myth that was proven not true? I'm currently reading Wages of Destruction and, while I'm only a few chapters in, Goons over in the milhist thread have stated it proves this was all propoganda fed during the cold war by former members of the military/government The wartime build up Germany was conducting was ultimately unsustainable, but that didn't mean Nazi Germany was necessarily on the edge of collapse if spending had slowed. Germany had a relatively privileged trade relationship with Central Europe and the Balkan states. Ultimately, growth would have likely slowed from the 7-8% growth they were seeing and if the Germans had suddenly pulled the breaks in 1939 they probably could have road it out with recession. If they had continued the spend the same amount on their military (23-30% of GDP) they had until 1942-43 they would be in a very poor fiscal situation but it didn't necessarily have to go in that direction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:I'm genuinely curious why you would think that considering that by 1939 Hitler had created the Nuremberg Laws, burned books in nationwide bonfires and executed people within his own party. By 1939 he was a full blown evil dictator. Captain MacClaine put it better than I could (and that's why he's the historian, not me!), but by that point Hitler was like, Franco levels of bad, and not that far from what other European nations were doing. Hitler is the caricature of evil because of the Shoah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/HistoryInPix/status/830820518160896002 Why there wasn't prosthetics in the Soviet Union? Was it a resource thing or more of a cultural thing? To my knowledge handicapped people's rights or accessibility still isn't a thing in Eastern Europe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 18:07
|
|
