Member Article: Marching to Timbuktu: The Unwanted Conquest of Mali that Made a Marshal of France
by Dr. Andrew McGregor
When French troops launched a military intervention against Islamist militants in Mali in January 2013, many of those advancing on the legendary city of Timbuktu may have been unaware that it had been 119 years since a French colonial army column under Major Joseph Joffre had entered that ancient trading capital. Rather than a triumph for France, the 1894 occupation was in fact a planned act of insubordination by Joffre and other French colonial officers. The truth was France didn’t want Timbuktu.
Joffre is best known as the commander of all French armies in World War 1 after his victory at the Marne in 1914 was credited with saving France. At the height of his fame in 1915 his military report of the 1894 occupation of Timbuktu was reprinted under the title
My March to Timbuctoo. Unfortunately, Joffre’s account of his campaign along the Niger River disappoints adventure seekers; it is instead a model of dryness and economy of words devoid of personal observations or impressions. Brevity was no doubt called for, as the true story of insubordination, atrocities and war for war’s sake that was behind the conquest of Timbuktu was hardly the material with which to build the reputation of a Marshal of France.
Member Article: The War between Norway and Sweden 1808
by Kai Isaksen
The war and battles described in this article are on a very small scale compared to the major battles that raged in Europe around the same time. In general the battles included from a few hundred up to 2-3000 men, and generally lasted a few hours. The area of operations was also relatively limited, stretching from the southern border between Norway and Sweden and north to the border town of Kongsvinger, a distance of some 150 km, in the counties of Hedmark (northern part of the battlefield) and Østfold (southern part).
Member Article: Gonzales: Crucible of the Texas Revolution
by Garland R. Lively
Gonzales, Texas is the current county seat of Gonzales County and is located at the confluence of the Guadalupe and San Marcus Rivers. It was surveyed by James Kerr and established as the capital of De Witt's Colony in 1825, being named after Rafael Gonzales, governor of Coahuila and Texas.
Member Article: General Phillip Sheridan's Southern Plains Campaign of 1874 - 1875
by Garland R. Lively
At the conclusion of the American Civil War bands of plains Indians consisting mainly of the Comanche, Kiowa, Kiowa Apache, Arapahoe, and the Southern Cheyenne were raiding at will all across the southern plains.[1] Several expeditions were mounted to subdue the plains Indians and although they severely punished them they were never able to force them to remain on their reservations and cease raiding the settlements.
Member Article: Milvern Harrell: Survivor
of the Dawson Massacre
by Garland R. Lively
Milvern Harrell was born March 24,1824 near Troy in Lincoln County, Missouri, the son of William Harrell and Minerva Woods. He was the grandson of Zadock Woods who was an early Texas Pioneer that came to explore Texas in 1822. Zadock returned to Missouri enthusiastic about the vast and fertile lands of Texas and the prospects of obtaining a league of land (4,228 acres) for himself and each married man plus a smaller amount for unmarried men.
Member Article: A Brief History of the Mexican-American War
by Phillip Muskett
The United States has fought many wars in its two centuries of existence. These
wars were fought for state’s rights or against fascism and communism. The
Mexican American War of 1846 was fought for land and sixteen years later this
war nearly destroyed the Union.
Member Article: Giuseppe Garibaldi, A Blue Shirt?
by Matt Duffy
Were it not for a bit of bad timing and a government bureaucrat overstepping
his authority, we just might be thanking an Italian rather than General Grant
for defeating the Confederacy and saving the Union. After Fort Sumter was fired
upon in April, 1861, President Lincoln was facing the greatest crisis of his
career, civil war.
Member Article: Solferino: Slaughter and Rebirth
by Eric Niderost
In June 1859 long columns of blue-clad French troops marched east though the sun-baked plains of Northern Italy.
Normally Lombardy was blessed by the most fertile soil in the peninsula, nourished by the mighty Po River and
its many tributaries, but this summer was unseasonably hot, scorching man and beast alike and desiccating the
normally bountiful fields.
Member Article: The Battle of Lundy's Lane
by Birrion Sondahl
The Battle of Lundy's Lane was fought on July 25, 1814 between the British army
of General Sir Gordon Drummond and the American army of Major General Jacob S.
Brown. After their recent victory at the Battle of Chippewa (July 5, 1814), the
American army was advancing north towards Queenston.
Member Article: Indiscreet Message
Intercepted: The Fall of Paris, 1814
by Eric Niderost
On Sunday, January 23, 1814, some 700 officers of the Parisian National Guard
assembled in the Salle des Marechaux of the Tuileries Palace. The Salle
des Marechaux was cavernous, it’s two-story walls echoing with the
booted footfalls of the officers.[1]
Member Article: Belated Triumph: The Capture
of the Frigate President
by Caleb Greinke
Britannia's trident had rusted over by the War of 1812. At sea, the conflict,
largely initiated by antagonistic British policies concerning the impressment
of American sailors, had produced a number of spectacular American victories
over British men o' war. The Constitution soundly trounced two
frigates already, and the smaller brigs, sloops, and corvettes of the tiny
American navy managed to compile a respectable battle record.
Member Article: Austerlitz: Napoleon Makes His Own Luck
by Lonny L. Grout
Austerlitz was the battle that many historians have considered Napoleon's
masterpiece. Napoleon himself considered this his masterpiece. There is no
doubt that Austerlitz was a great victory for Napoleon, both strategically and
tactically. So, was it all the genius of Napoleon, or was it merely that luck
was on the side of Napoleon's army that day? While researching this question,
what came directly to my mind was a saying I once heard someone unknown say,
"you make our own luck." This described Napoleon at Austerlitz very well.
Napoleon clearly made his own luck.
Member Article: Austerlitz: Napoleon Makes His Own Luck
by Lonny L. Grout
Austerlitz was the battle that many historians have considered Napoleon's
masterpiece. Napoleon himself considered this his masterpiece. There is no
doubt that Austerlitz was a great victory for Napoleon, both strategically and
tactically. So, was it all the genius of Napoleon, or was it merely that luck
was on the side of Napoleon's army that day? While researching this question,
what came directly to my mind was a saying I once heard someone unknown say,
"you make our own luck." This described Napoleon at Austerlitz very well.
Napoleon clearly made his own luck.
Member Article: The Failures at Spion Kop
by Robert C. Daniels
In many ways the Battle of Spion Kop was typical of the many battles fought
between the British and the joint armies of the Boer Republics of the Transvaal
and the Orange Free State from 1899 to 1902 in what is known as the Boer War.
It was one of many battles of the war in which the British army, a highly
trained, disciplined, and professionally led army, lost to the untrained and
undisciplined Boer army, made up of Boers (the Afrikaans word for farmers) and
Burghers (storekeepers and town-dwellers), and led by, for the most part,
leaders who were unlearned and inexperienced in the techniques of modern day
warfare.
Member Article: The Quality of the Combatants in the Black Hawk War
by Robert C. Daniels
As with so many of the Indian wars fought between the United States and the
many separate tribes of Native Americans, the 1832 Black Hawk War, named after
the Sac [1] Indian Mà-ka-tai-me-she-kià-kiàk,[2] meaning Black Hawk in
English and the leading Indian antagonist of the war, was a direct result of
the white man's encroachment upon Indian lands. In as much, like many of these
wars, it was a war that need not have taken place.
Member Article: The Tunisian Army in the Crimean War: A Military
Mystery
by Dr. Andrew McGregor
Though it solved little at a great expense in human life, the Crimean War of
1853-55 remains a much-studied turning point in military history. Despite its
name soldiers and sailors from a variety of nations and empires fought the war
on seven fronts; the Danube region, the Crimea, the Caucasus, Eastern Anatolia,
the Baltic Sea, the White Sea, and the Kamchatka Peninsula on Russia's Pacific
Coast. With several other nations on the brink of joining in (including Spain,
Austria-Hungary, Prussia, Sweden and the United States), the Crimean War very
nearly became the first World War. For the combatants its often-disastrous
conduct exposed the need for revisions in military tactics, improved medical
services and the creation of efficient logistical systems. The Muslim Ottoman
Empire entered into an alliance with the Christian nations of Western Europe
against Russia, laying the historical groundwork for the eventual presence of
modern Turkey as the second-largest military force in NATO.
Member Article: Giuseppe Garibaldi:
Motivations for a Unified Italy
by Guy Nasuti
Giuseppe Garibaldi is as much a hero to Italians today as he was back when he
attempted to unify the various Italian states into one nation. Garibaldi’s
motivations for organizing and fighting with his Risorgimento was to
found a liberal system of government for Italy that was then sweeping most of
Europe, to become a leader to men who shared his ideals, and ultimately the
establishment of a unified Italy. Giuseppe Garibaldi was a revolutionary from
an early age. In 1834, in Marseilles, France, he met a man named Giuseppe
Mazzini, who was the leading proponent of Italian unification at the time.
Mazzini shared his vision of a liberal republic made possible through political
and social reforms with the youthful Garibaldi, and the impression was made.
Garibaldi joined the Young Italy movement and the Carbonari revolutionary
association.[1]
Member Article: The Mitrailleuse
by Dr. Patrick Marder
The Mitrailleuse was the world's first machine-gun to actually be used in major
combat, during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. Description: 25 barrels of
13mm caliber, bullet weight: 50 grammes, powder weight 12 grammes, muzzle
velocity: an extraordinary (for the time!) 530 metres/second (the result of a
high propellant/projectile ratio of nearly 1:4; higher than the Chassepot's of
1:5 or of the Dreyse's of 1:6), rate of fire 75 to 125 rpm or 200 rpm max; one
battery of six guns carried 9 chests loaded with a total of 43,200 bullets.
This ammunition supply allows 7200 rounds (or 1440 25-round 'clips') for each
Mitrailleuse, enough ammunition to theoretically permit one and a half hours of
continuous fire.
Member Article: The Grande
Armee of 1812 in Russia
by Major James T. McGhee
Author and historian David G. Chandler identifies Napoleon Bonaparte as "one of
the greatest military minds that has ever existed."[1] Indeed Napoleon's
exploits as a military commander and his subsequent rise to the position of
Emperor of France and much of Europe has produced an enormous amount of
scholarly interest. Historians, political scientists, military theorists and
others have published volumes on Napoleon and his times. Napoleon's rise to
power was achieved in a large part by his many military successes. His
remarkable victories over the combined armies of Europe won him recognition and
glory as a general and finally Emperor. However, through the many challenging
and bloody campaigns it was the soldiers serving under Napoleon and in the
Grand Army and their sacrifices that provided Napoleon with his power over
Europe. Napoleon expected nothing less from his troops. He pushed them beyond
human endurance to achieve total victory over his enemies. According to
Napoleon, "The first qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and
privation. Courage is only the second; hardship, poverty, and want are the best
school for a soldier."[2] In 1812, Napoleon embarked on a campaign that would
test the limits of these qualifications in his soldiers. Those who endured the
brutal march of Napoleon's Russian Campaign of 1812 and survived may be
considered, most certainly by Napoleon's standards, some of the most qualified
soldiers in the history of warfare.
Member
Article: The French Campaign of 1859 (Second War of Italian Unification)
by Dr. Patrick Marder
Despite its possibilities and perspectives, the practical heritage of the
Crimean War for the French Army was a meager one. The Historique of the
artillery service admitted openly in 1858 that "the fusil d'infanterie
[the smoothbore musket] has rendered little or no service "; which is
quite a strong statement when one remembers that this weapon equipped 83% of
French forces in the Crimea.[1] Essentially then, an overwhelming proportion of
French infantry—the men of the line regiments—made little direct military
contribution to combat, surrendering the decisive battle role to the elite
forces of the Zouaves, Turcos, Chasseurs, equipped with rifled arms and fighting
in the light infantry order. And while the usefulness of rifled arms had
been recognized, this understanding did not translate into any significant
tactical evolution; more perniciously, the idea that success depended on the
spirit and élan of offensive charges continued to flourish. Strategically also,
there seems to have been no comprehension of what spiraling technological
progress in weapons represented. The experience of Africa—much longer and
extensive than the war in the Crimea—still upheld audacity, courage, and
autonomy, more than weaponry, as the decisive ingredients to victory.
Member Article: The French
Intervention in Mexico (1862-67)
by Timothy Neeno, M.A.
Beginning in 1862, while the United States was paralyzed by Civil War, the
French under Napoleon III tried to create an empire in Mexico under a puppet
ruler, the Archduke Maximilian of Austria. Over the next five years of war some
300,000 Mexicans died, and French ambitions were dealt a bruising blow. How had
this conflict come about, and how did a weakened, divided nation defeat one of
the most powerful empires in the world? From 1521, when an army of
conquistadors under Hernán Cortéz marched into the Aztec capital of
Tenochtitlan, until 1821, Mexico was under the harsh rule of Spain. For three
hundred years the Spaniards kept tight control of Mexico, limiting her trade to
Spain alone and preventing any attempts at self government. After years of
unrest and rebellion, the Spanish left Mexico, leaving a land in turmoil.
Between 1821 and 1848 Mexico was in a near constant state of upheaval, in which
she lost half her national territory to the expanding United States. In the
long period of strife before and after independence, three groups grew in
wealth, power and influence: the army, rich landowners, and the Church. The
Catholic Church alone controlled nearly one half the taxable land in Mexico,
while the owners of the great haciendas reduced many ostensibly free
smallholders to debt peonage. At the same time the central government declined
in authority and prestige. Of a population of nine million people, some five
million were Native Americans, with little or nor rights, and three million
others were mestizos, people of mixed European and Native American blood,
leaving a ruling class of one million European descended Whites.
Read more...
Member Article: The Master's
Misstep
by Drew Betson
On 14 October, 1806, French forces achieved decisive victory in pitched battles
against Prussian forces in the fields near the towns Jena and Auerstadt. As the
battle commanded by Napoleon at Jena approached its finish and the Prussian
lines began to break, Napoleon maintained many of the elite foot soldiers of
the Imperial Guard in tactical reserve.[1] After overhearing a soldier yell
"Forward!" Napoleon retorted, "This can only be a young man with no beard who
wishes to prejudge what I am going to do; let him wait until he has commanded
in thirty pitched battles before pretending to give me his opinion."[2] This
vignette plays to the common perception of Napoleon as the singular man with
decision-making ability in his Grand Armée. While it was true that on his level
of command, Napoleon was his own operations and intelligence officer and
dictated orders from the movements of corps to the state of supplies,
Napoleon's actions on campaigns provides for the historian a truly amazing
military mind.[3]
Read more...
Member Article: Trafalgar
Remembered
by Nitin K. Shankar
The sea battle of Trafalgar fought in 1805 is strongly linked to memories of my
school history lessons in 1951, a visit to the HMS Victory in
Portsmouth in 1957 and a day spent in Cadiz in 1987. My school history
book described the victor of the battle, Horatio Nelson, as a 'weak and sickly
child' who distinguished himself through great personal courage and went on to
become the Royal Navy's greatest admirals. It was the combination of Nelson's
puny appearance and daring that inspired me to read more about him. Born in
1758, Nelson entered the Royal Navy at the age of 12. He passed his
lieutenant's exam more than a year under the official age in 1777 and was made
post-captain at the age of 21. His youthfulness stood out and even the Prince
of Wales, who was then a young midshipman on board Admiral Samuel Hood's
flagship, the Barfleur, noticed Nelson. The future King William IV
described Nelson as 'the merest boy of a captain I ever beheld.'
Read more...
Rorke's Drift
by Gilbert Padilla
By the middle of the nineteenth century Great Britain held two colonies in
southern Africa, the Cape Colony and Natal. These stretched from the southern
tip of the continent (the Cape) upwards along its eastern coast (Natal). In the
interior of the region were two independent Boer republics, the Orange Free
State and the Transvaal. Among these European enclaves were the remnants of the
original African nations, the strongest of which was the Zulu kingdom, just
north of Natal. To Sir Henry Bartle Edward Frere, the British government’s High
Commissioner for Southern Africa, this simply would not do. To Frere, the
fiercely independent Zulus posed a serious threat to the policy of
“Confederation”, which he advocated. The object of this policy was to ensure
stability by bringing all of these groups under British control. In 1877
Britain annexed the Transvaal, thereby inheriting a border dispute with the
Zulu kingdom (Zululand, or KwaZulu). Further, in 1873 King Cetshwayo kaMpande
had initiated a series of internal reforms with the goal of revitalizing and
strengthening the Zulu nation. To remove this perceived threat to the authority
of Queen Victoria, Frere determined to orchestrate a military confrontation
with the Zulus for the express purpose of breaking their power. To the British
Army commander in the region, Lieutenant-General Sir Frederic Thesiger, 2nd
Baron Chelmsford, this seemed a task that would require neither much time nor
much effort. Chelmsford estimated that King Cetshwayo could muster an army of
over forty thousand warriors, but this was a part-time citizen force armed with
mostly traditional weapons, i.e., spear and shield. No matter what training or
discipline such soldiers might possess, both Frere and Chelmsford judged them
no match for a well-trained, well-equipped, and well-led modern professional
army.
Read
more...
|
