MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 83 of 115 (Page:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82    83    84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115 )
Message
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
7/27/2023 10:02:11 AM
Some folks need a distraction to use an escalator.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
7/27/2023 11:20:37 AM
Quote:
Quote:
2,000 A Concord Jet crashes outside of Paris killing all!? Was this plane type flawed & unsafe!?? What say you??

IMHO, the SST was a fine, exciting, innovative a/c conceived when air travel was expected to remain a rather elite service and introduced to service when air travel was seen as mass transportation. Only 14 SSTs entered service, and they were shared by only two National airlines (Air France and British Airways). The small sample makes it difficult to determine whether it was either flawed or unsafe. But of the 14 in service, I believe only one crashed with loss of life in its service life of something like 30 years.

I’m not a tech freak by any means, but I have read at least two histories of the development of the Concorde, and each was fascinating. Heat dissipation; swelling and shrinkage caused by heat generated by speed of flight; concerns about the extension of the flight envelope – all had to be dealt with. Small but vital matters including extended landing gear; wing surface stability became engineering challenges.

I think the Concorde (SST) was a beautiful, expectation-busting, well-engineered a/c. That said, it was a sort of mistake – a mistake that still tempts designers to explore supersonic passenger flight. Mass air travel, with its flexible 3-tiered accommodation, has become the norm. Any further SST development (and it is going on as of now) is a hedge on travellers with funds to pay extraordinary money to reduce by a variable but perceptib.le margin any lengthy flight (think Aukland to Heathrow!).

Cheers,
Brian G



Hi Brian,

What about the turned down nose on some SST's? Not sure I understand the aerodynamics of that??

MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
7/27/2023 11:23:38 AM
Hey guys,

Checking tomorrow in history, feel free to comment on the following!? Anyone?

7-28, the following events, any others? All comments welcome!??

1794 the reign of terror ends in France! Why were the French so revolutionary!? Anyone??

1909 the Wright Brothers release their 1st war plane!? Any comments on it & WWI warplanes??

1953 the Korean War ends! Is it really finished?? Situation in Korea? Anyone??

1914 WWI begins!? What set it off really!? What say you??

Regards, & Comments??
MD

& A couple more for good measure!?

1759 Johan Sebastian Bach dies! Who was your favorite classical composer? Anyone??

1868 the 14th Amendment passes giving equal rights to all Americans! Do we sill have a lot to do to achieve this??
What's the problem?? What say you??
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
7/27/2023 6:03:37 PM
Quote:
What about the turned down nose on some SST's? Not sure I understand the aerodynamics of that??

Dave, can’t answer for the Russian Tu-144; never really read much about it, though it had a decent track record. Some say it is close to a duplicate of the European SST, but that the Soviets could not manage the finely-tuned hydraulics of the European version and had to add canards to assist the nose through its arc of motion.

At any rate, the tiltable nose was, IIRC, necessary for both take of and landing. Otherwise the cockpit crew could not see where they were going. That sounds absurd, but that’s what I remember of the matter.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
7/27/2023 7:40:37 PM
Quote:
1794 the reign of terror ends in France! Why were the French so revolutionary!? Anyone??


I wondered the same thing about the US.

It does seem that some French people were enamoured of the new nation of the United States and aware that its pathway to change was through revolution.

It is also apparent that while US revolutionaries had their set of grievances, so did the French. They were tired of the stratified cultural order with the nobility at the top and the clergy in the middle and the commoners on the bottom. This Estate System placed the three groups in conflict as the commoners objected to the raising of taxes as proposed by the other two estates. I am not sure of what powers the commoners had in this Estate System. If anyone wants to weigh in then please do.

France did need money. That's what happens when you fight wars continuously. But the people objected to the raising of money on their backs.

And the French people were influenced by the writings of modern philosophers. They developed ideas of France as an egalitarian society.

As to why this revolution evolved into a bloodbath, that's another question.

Cheers,

George
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
7/28/2023 2:27:19 AM
1914 : Austria , or, more correctly, the Austro Hungarian Empire, declared war on Serbia, inaugurating a week that would see Germany, Russia, France and Great Britain declare war and commence a conflict that has cast its shadow over us all.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
7/28/2023 2:43:11 PM

Today 7-28, the following events, any others? All comments welcome!??

1794 the reign of terror ends in France! Why were the French so revolutionary!? Anyone?? Thanks George, good post on this!

1909 the Wright Brothers release their 1st war plane!? Any comments on it & WWI warplanes??

1953 the Korean War ends! Is it really finished?? Situation in Korea? Anyone??

1914 WWI begins!? What set it off really!? What say you?? Thanks Phil, on the reply!

1759 Johan Sebastian Bach dies! Who was your favorite classical composer? Anyone??

1868 the 14th Amendment passes giving equal rights to all Americans! Do we sill have a lot to do to achieve this??

Regards,
MD


----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
7/28/2023 9:42:25 PM
Quote:
1914 : Austria , or, more correctly, the Austro Hungarian Empire, declared war on Serbia, inaugurating a week that would see Germany, Russia, France and Great Britain declare war and commence a conflict that has cast its shadow over us all.

Regards, Phil



Hi Phil,

With the Arch Duke Ferdinand assassinated on 6-28, it took a full month for the war to break out!?

What took so long??
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
7/29/2023 8:05:50 AM


& today, 7-29 in history!?

1588 the Spanish Armada is off England! Without the big storm would The Spanish won?? Comments?

1981 Princess Di. marries Prince Charles! What say you about the Royal match?? Anyone?

1958 NASA is formed! Successful??

Surely other events occurred! Anymore??

Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
7/29/2023 8:25:21 AM
The Duke of Medina Sidonia would have lost that battle for Spain under most circumstances. He was the senior noble available and thus automatically in command. He was also a landlubber who suffered from seasickness. NOT good qualifications for a fleet admiral.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
7/29/2023 8:49:46 AM
Quote:
Quote:
1914 : Austria , or, more correctly, the Austro Hungarian Empire, declared war on Serbia, inaugurating a week that would see Germany, Russia, France and Great Britain declare war and commence a conflict that has cast its shadow over us all.

Regards, Phil



Hi Phil,

With the Arch Duke Ferdinand assassinated on 6-28, it took a full month for the war to break out!?

What took so long??
MD


It took time to mobilize the troops of the different nations. Some, like Russia began a slow mobilization pretty quickly. That may have actually sped up the response of Austro-Hungary which wanted to lay a quick beating on Serbia before the Russians could respond. A-H still had some thoughts of re-establishing its past glory and would use a war to gain it.

As I recall there was some indifference on the part of the diplomatic corps of Britain and France. Britain was pre-occupied with Ireland too.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was dying so by itself it was not considered a great threat to world peace.

As well, Austro-Hungary had to be assured of German support as the Russians had indicated their support for Serbia whose activists had killed the Prince. I believe that Germany was advising or directing A-H as to how to respond but I cannot recall whether the ultimatum given to Serbia was drawn up by Germany or not.

But A-H issued that ultimatum to the Serbs. The ultimatum was made with the support of Germany and it demanded that A-H be permitted to conduct an internal investigation of the assassination in Serbia. Serbia was told to quell the propaganda that was being directed toward A-H. They also were required to dismantle any anti-Austo-Hungarian groups that the A-H Empire considered to be terrorists.

This was an ultimatum that no self respecting nation could accept. Serbia then appealed to Russia which was already beginning a slow mobilization of forces.

Serbia did respond to A-H and Serbia accepted most of the demands but would not allow A-H to conduct its own internal investigation. At the same time Serbia mobilized its army.

So war didn't begin the day after the assassination. Political and military developments had to occur first.

But when A-H did declare war on Serbia the web of alliances saw the dominoes fall as nations fell in line to support those nations in their alliance.

Cheers,

George
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
7/29/2023 2:38:43 PM
A good resume, George.

The Serbs were battle hardened after the Balkan Wars.

Proud and assertive, as they are to this day, they weren’t going to roll over.

There is a sub plot that attracts my salacious interest :

the Austrian Chief of Staff, Conrad Von Hotzendorff, a horny old man , had designs on the attractive wife of one of his subordinates, and thought that by invading Serbia he would enhance his reputation as the Big Swinging Dick, and would be better able to bed the lady in question.

It’s a scurrilous anecdote, but I’m tempted to give it credence.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
7/29/2023 7:59:01 PM
Phil, Margaret MacMillan in her book, The War That Ended the Peace, had good descriptions of the cast of characters from all the different nations who were complicit in letting this war begin. I am trying to recall what she said about Von Hotzendorff. I shall have to look it up because I believe that she devoted a good part of the book to him.

Your anecdote seems to suggest that the Austro-Hungarians sought any pretext to war.

Cheers,

George
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
7/29/2023 10:15:14 PM
On this day in 1958, as Dave notes, “… NASA is formed! Successful?”

It’s hard to argue NASA was unsuccessful, IMHO; I’ve stood, mouth agape, watching the ISS shine in the evening skies. For this old man, of course, it isn’t whether it was successful but whether/why any western nation (including the US) should have: (a) been so sucker-punched by the USSR; and/or (b) responded in such a panicky way to Soviet advances they should have been aware of.

This is not an issue I have paid particular attention to. But I remember the all-but-terror when Sputnik was launched, and the shame and panic (disguised as national embarrassment) when Yuri Gagarin orbited. To be honest, I believe the US public response increased the already high level of fear concerning atomic assault by some degree.

I always wondered if the US had been conned in the 10+ years after the end of the war by Werner von Braun and his paper clip colleagues. The USS and the USA both relied heavily on German minds stolen from the collapse of the Third Reich. It still seems odd to me that the US was so far behind the USSR in developing the basic work done for the V-2 more than a decade after 1945.

Couple of points. I seem to remember that NASA was originally an acronym for some other term: was it National Aviation and Space Administration, or something like that.

I also wondered (rather vaguely at the time of the announcement of its creation, but with increasing concern as the IKE era gave over to JFK) why the “technology gap”, “science gap” and/or “math gap” was so pointed at the education system. IMHO, the Soviet lead was a result of political decisions made by two different governments. The US panic over being so clearly behind was, IMHO, a particularly lowly diversion of blame from Congress to educators.

JFK, of course, officiated over the marriage of space exploration and political systems. His speech concerning sending a man to the moon and safely returning him before the end of the 1960s was pure patriotic pablum. Landing and returning from a landing on the moon served no purpose except for bragging ranks. There is a reason why we haven’t set foot on the moon in 40 years: it advances nothing, just as it proved nothing the first time around.

After the Apollo program ended, I think NASA and many of its some-time partners started to bring their true function into focus. The successes in deep probes, detailed exploration, astrophysics, astronomical support, space stations and the like have provided powerful information in any field dealing with the heavens. That is the true success of NASA, IMHO.

At the same time, I notice that NASA has at present no way of launching or returning scientists to the ISS. They must rely on Russian capabilities from former Soviet cosmodromes, or private sector agencies who are in the game for profit.

Not really meant as a downer, if that is how this is seen. NASA has done some brilliant things. But behind it all is the $million pen, while the Soviets used a pencil.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
7/29/2023 11:50:19 PM
Quote:
1588 the Spanish Armada is off England! Without the big storm would The Spanish won?? Comments?

IMHO, no. To a large extent, the storms affected both “navies” (if they can be so-called) equally.

Spain was, at the time, amongst the leading seafaring nations of Europe, making their mark in Central/South America and thrusting into the Pacific. But the birth of naval forces as they would become known in the great Age of Sail were in their infancy, and in this way England was probably leading European nations. The pirates and privateers linked to the English Crown (i.e., Elizabeth) were better designed for rough sea conditions, and better armed for combat.

More than that, Phillip II’s Armada was designed not to fight a sea battle but to land troops, horses and equipment on English soil. IIUC, it was under the command of a man with little or no practical naval experience. For the English, Drake was nominally in charge. And don’t be fooled by the myth of him finishing his game of bowls on Plymouth Hoe; its more likely he was reading the weather and realizing that his small ships would fare better in the coming gales than would the colossi of the Armada. He proved correct. IIRC, Drake caught the Spanish on a lee shore, and more or less ate them up.

The actual conflict between Drake and the Armada was only part of the story. The Spanish decided not to attempt to beat down the English Channel and head for home. They sailed north up the east side of England, hoping to round the tip of Scotland and return to Spain via the Atlantic side of Ireland. In the area of the Orkneys (and the Outer Hebrides) they were hit by more storms, and the majority of the ships of the Armada were either driven ashore or foundered.

Put in a larger context, Phillip II had strong reasons for attempting to conquor England. He had been husband and consort to Queen Mary (as in Bloody Mary) and had supported her attempts to return England to the Church of Rome. With Mary’s death, her half-sister Elizabeth took both the crown and the country’s faith in hand, rejecting Catholicism entirely. Phillip was, I believe, acting on the desires of the current Pope when his Armada set sail to return England to the fold. But there must have been a personal element to his commitment to the invasion.

I may be wrong, but I believe it was during the time of the Armada’s presence that Elizabeth uttered one of those statement (perhaps mythical) as she travelled towards the Channel to show herself to her people. Her comment, in all its grammatical inconsistency, was: “We are no woman, but a sovereign prince!” That could be as bogus as Drake’s comments about bowls, of course. Sometimes, blether can create aura!

Cheers
Brian G

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
DT509er
Santa Rosa CA USA
Posts: 1527
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 12:04:23 AM
Quote:
JFK, of course, officiated over the marriage of space exploration and political systems. His speech concerning sending a man to the moon and safely returning him before the end of the 1960s was pure patriotic pablum. Landing and returning from a landing on the moon served no purpose except for bragging ranks. There is a reason why we haven’t set foot on the moon in 40 years: it advances nothing, just as it proved nothing the first time around.

Cheers
Brian G


Hi Brian. I could not agree more with your thoughts of; "Landing and returning from a landing on the moon served no purpose except for bragging ranks."

The moon landings were a phenomenal feat of mankind including the return of man from the moon. Was there a little man/big man attitude between the USA and USSR, absolutely. The success of landing and returning a man on the moon is, scientifically amazing. Why do I say so? Because of the Polynesian’s, the Phoenicians, the Vikings, and Columbus who sailed across the sea's and if it were not for them, we would not be having such discussions, or it would be in a far different tone of discussion. Their willingness to lay it all out on the table has led to huge discoveries in the time of man on Earth.

OH, no doubt, a few "native" Indians would claim, that could have been a good thing but man, in all his interests is about exploration, and while I believe that space is "the final frontier", its immensity may lead man, woman, humans to discovery's we may have never fathomed, or wished for but, "to infinity and beyond" we should go.


Dan
----------------------------------
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..." German officer, Italy 1944. “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 4:23:29 AM
Quote:
Quote:
1588 the Spanish Armada is off England! Without the big storm would The Spanish won?? Comments?

IMHO, no. To a large extent, the storms affected both “navies” (if they can be so-called) equally.

Spain was, at the time, amongst the leading seafaring nations of Europe, making their mark in Central/South America and thrusting into the Pacific. But the birth of naval forces as they would become known in the great Age of Sail were in their infancy, and in this way England was probably leading European nations. The pirates and privateers linked to the English Crown (i.e., Elizabeth) were better designed for rough sea conditions, and better armed for combat.

More than that, Phillip II’s Armada was designed not to fight a sea battle but to land troops, horses and equipment on English soil. IIUC, it was under the command of a man with little or no practical naval experience. For the English, Drake was nominally in charge. And don’t be fooled by the myth of him finishing his game of bowls on Plymouth Hoe; its more likely he was reading the weather and realizing that his small ships would fare better in the coming gales than would the colossi of the Armada. He proved correct. IIRC, Drake caught the Spanish on a lee shore, and more or less ate them up.

The actual conflict between Drake and the Armada was only part of the story. The Spanish decided not to attempt to beat down the English Channel and head for home. They sailed north up the east side of England, hoping to round the tip of Scotland and return to Spain via the Atlantic side of Ireland. In the area of the Orkneys (and the Outer Hebrides) they were hit by more storms, and the majority of the ships of the Armada were either driven ashore or foundered.

Put in a larger context, Phillip II had strong reasons for attempting to conquor England. He had been husband and consort to Queen Mary (as in Bloody Mary) and had supported her attempts to return England to the Church of Rome. With Mary’s death, her half-sister Elizabeth took both the crown and the country’s faith in hand, rejecting Catholicism entirely. Phillip was, I believe, acting on the desires of the current Pope when his Armada set sail to return England to the fold. But there must have been a personal element to his commitment to the invasion.

I may be wrong, but I believe it was during the time of the Armada’s presence that Elizabeth uttered one of those statement (perhaps mythical) as she travelled towards the Channel to show herself to her people. Her comment, in all its grammatical inconsistency, was: “We are no woman, but a sovereign prince!” That could be as bogus as Drake’s comments about bowls, of course. Sometimes, blether can create aura!

Cheers
Brian G

Cheers
Brian G


Such an interesting topic, Brian ! I’ve read that English cannon were more suitable for ships, being adapted for the confined spaces of decks, whereas Spanish guns were too long in the trail and unwieldy. The Battle of Gravelines allowed the English to exploit this advantage in rate and effectiveness of firepower.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 5:57:08 AM
Same guns, most, different carriages. The Duke of Medina Sidonia decided there would be no resistance to the passage of the Armada up the Channel and no opposition to the landings. After that he'd have the advantage in artillery.

Bloody Brits didn't cooperate.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 6:47:57 AM
Quote:
Same guns, most, different carriages. The Duke of Medina Sidonia decided there would be no resistance to the passage of the Armada up the Channel and no opposition to the landings. After that he'd have the advantage in artillery.

Bloody Brits didn't cooperate.


This narrative of English courage and skill was taught to children of my generation with a reverence and enthusiasm that marked us for life.

I wonder if it inspired Brexit !

As a nine year old I was told to read out loud to my classmates Tennyson’s poem about Grenville’s epic fight with his ship, The Revenge, against 53 Spanish ships.

As potent to us as the legend of the Alamo is to Texans.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 7:04:07 AM
Great heroes and great failures both tend to spawn tales of all kinds.

As for Texas, did you see the hissy fits when the latest "Alamo" movie stuck to history (pretty close, anyway) rather than the days' long siege an early movie contributed to pseudo-history?
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 7:11:50 AM
Quote:
Great heroes and great failures both tend to spawn tales of all kinds.

As for Texas, did you see the hissy fits when the latest "Alamo" movie stuck to history (pretty close, anyway) rather than the days' long siege an early movie contributed to pseudo-history?


There was an Alamo film I saw about fifteen years ago.

Please tell me if that’s the one.

It depicted Crockett being bound and bayoneted and snarling at his captors as he was about to be killed.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 9:04:22 AM
Two Alamo movies, 1960 and 2004. The latter is the one I was referring to, the former starred John Wayne, et al.
morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 9:06:43 AM

OP and Phil, that film was called, oddly enough, "the Alamo" and came out in 2003. It is the best and most accurate telling of the Alamo siege on film yet, directed by a Texan, John Lee Hancock, and it covers the siege of the Alamo as well as the attempts by Sam Houston to raise and train an army...the "Runaway Scrape," and Houston`s eastward retreat towards the US border...drawing Santa Anna and his army farther away from supplies, weakening it, then turning on it at San Jacinto.

It paints Travis, ( abandoned his wife and two kids) Bowie, ( A tubercular knife-fighter and land fraudster) and Houston ( alcoholic former Tennessee governor) as real men with shady pasts, hoping for a fresh start in Tejas.

The final attack on the old mission is correctly shown to take place in the early morning darkness, not in daylight like the other films always show. It does follow the myth that Crockett was taken alive, only to be executed by Santa Anna anyway. The most likely death of Crockett occurred in the elliptical lunette just outside the West Wall, where his body was identified. More than likely, Crockett, who did not like being hemmed-up in the mission and was tasked with guarding the wooden palisade tried to at least get outside the walls to fight and die.

An under-rated movie in my opinion and worth watching.

Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 9:22:27 AM
"OP and Phil, that film was called, oddly enough, "the Alamo" and came out in 2003. "

I knew that.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 4:03:03 PM
Quote:
"OP and Phil, that film was called, oddly enough, "the Alamo" and came out in 2003. "

I knew that.


One thing I do remember about the movie is the depiction of Mexican pioneers, moving forward before dawn , and silently killing the Texan outposts with axes and knives, to pave the way for the big assault.

That would not have been countenanced in the John Wayne epic.

There was an aspiration to reality in this recent version.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 4:16:21 PM
Sadly, historically accurate movies seldom make money.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 4:21:17 PM
Quote:
Sadly, historically accurate movies seldom make money.


No, people need their fairy tales.

How about North West Passage, released in 1940, starring Spencer Tracy ?

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 4:56:51 PM
Quote:
Sadly, historically accurate movies seldom make money.


Unfortunately yes, that’s the case. I really enjoyed ‘Son of the Morning Star’ starring Gary Cole as Custer. It largely followed what we knew then of the battle and was light on the usual Hollywood drama. IMO, it’s easily the best of the various Custer movies made since the 1940s.

Cheers,

Colin

P.S sorry to all for recent radio silence, we were on holiday and I took a break from internet/devices as far as possible.

----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 6:56:00 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Sadly, historically accurate movies seldom make money.


Unfortunately yes, that’s the case. I really enjoyed ‘Son of the Morning Star’ starring Gary Cole as Custer. It largely followed what we knew then of the battle and was light on the usual Hollywood drama. IMO, it’s easily the best of the various Custer movies made since the 1940s.

Cheers,

Colin

P.S sorry to all for recent radio silence, we were on holiday and I took a break from internet/devices as far as possible.




Hi Colin,

I too, was on holiday, & couldn't post, but I'm back! ☺

Personally I like the Errol Flynn version, "They died with their boots on"! Not historically accurate, but I really liked how they played up the 7th, song, Garryowen, ( perhaps someone could post the scene where the 7th first heard Garryowen?) & how Flynn falsely played Custer as gallant, & heroic!!?

Hope you had a great time!
Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 7:03:15 PM


1921, BTW today 7-30,

A really big event was this one on the USS Indy!? See below!!

1945, the ship that delivered the 2 Atomic bombs, the USS Indianapolis was sank by a Japanese Submarine, with it's secret mission it wasn't reported missing, so hundreds of sailors were eaten by sharks!? ( it was in Jaws!) What say you about this terrifying event!? Who was to blame? & who did they pin it on?? Great movie on it, anyone see it??

& for tomorrow, the last day in July the following occurred! Any new topics??

1667 the Dutch give up New Amsterdam to the English! New York! Why couldn't the Dutch compete for colonies like other nations!? Anyone??

1965 JK Rowling's is born this author is now a billionaire! Is her works on Harry Potter that good!? Comments?

2006 Fidel Castro turns over the Cuban Government to his brother! Have things in Cuba changed at all!? Anyone? Not nice how Castro turned on America? After all we did to him! I mean for him!?? ☺

1971 NASA 1st uses the Lunar Rover! Kind of like a glorified golf cart?! Has space travel actually benefited the human race?? What say you!? Was their best new technology really useful???

A penny for your thoughts!
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 7:09:46 PM
"On July 16, 1945, the heavy cruiser USS Indianapolis, commanded by Captain Charles McVay III, steamed out of San Francisco, Calif. Her top-secret cargo was the uranium core for the atomic bomb destined to be dropped—in early August—on Hiroshima, Japan."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 7:51:48 PM
Quote:
1667 the Dutch give up New Amsterdam to the English! New York! Why couldn't the Dutch compete for colonies like other nations!? Anyone??


The immediate problem for the Dutch governor of New Amsterdam was that four British warships were sitting in the harbour. He didn't have any defences against that.

But prior to that, the Dutch and the English had been great competitors with both seeking dominance for economic reasons. He who controlled trade and shipping would dominate.

The two countries had been engaging in naval battles since 1652.

The Dutch governor who was Peter Stuyvesant, apparently wanted to fight but his multi-national population did not. However, I would say that the Dutch were excellent imperialists and as complicit in slavery as any of the other imperialist nations.

Netherlands held colonies for over 250 years in Indonesia, South Africa, New Guinea, the Caribbean. They were a wealthy nation because of it.

Cheers,

George

Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
7/30/2023 8:02:11 PM
Quote:
1667 the Dutch give up New Amsterdam to the English! New York! Why couldn't the Dutch compete for colonies like other nations!? Anyone?

This was, in truth, a by-blow of one of the many treaties signed at Breda. This part brought to a close an expensive and ugly series of wars between the Dutch and British (there would be three of them, including one after the Treaty was signed). The Dutch-English Wars were part of a larger conflict which ultimately involved England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France and in part Spain. It was to a large extent a commercial or trade war, and quite frankly through much of the 17th and 18th centuries land in the New World was of little commercial value. Even in the 1760s, the single island of Barbados brought more revenue by far to the British Treasury than all 13 states combined.

In that light, the united states which comprised the Netherlands weren’t losing much of commercial value, and were gaining some assurances that they would continue to hold their trading advantages and holdings in the the Caribbean and what was then simply called the East Indies – spice and sugar islands which could be (and were) exploited in the same manner the US would later exploit Hawaii, Cuba and the Philippines for very similar reasons.

The Dutch retained massive commercial and administrative authoritysin Indonesia and continued to thrive throughout SE Asia until the disruption of WW2. So did the British and French and US. The US simply came to the game later than others. From that point of view, I kinda think the loss of New Amsterdam was like losing an albatross.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
7/31/2023 6:59:58 AM
1917 : The British infantry went over the top and officially commenced the Third Battle of Ypres, popularly known by its culminating phase as Passchendaele.

A couple of weeks earlier, three thousand British guns had started a bombardment that expended four and a quarter million shells.

The battle lasted- officially- one hundred and five days.

On this first day the rain came down heavily, and the battlefield became a quagmire and shell hole wilderness, with the drainage irrigation system of the Flemish fields being smashed by the shells and compounding the mud.

It remains a controversial and notorious episode in the annals of British military history.

One of the battles most symbolic of that war’s horrors and futility.

I died in Hell. They called it Passchendaele.

Siegfried Sassoon’s poem .

Regards, Phil

----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
7/31/2023 1:20:19 PM
Quote:
Quote:
1667 the Dutch give up New Amsterdam to the English! New York! Why couldn't the Dutch compete for colonies like other nations!? Anyone??


The immediate problem for the Dutch governor of New Amsterdam was that four British warships were sitting in the harbour. He didn't have any defences against that.

But prior to that, the Dutch and the English had been great competitors with both seeking dominance for economic reasons. He who controlled trade and shipping would dominate.

The two countries had been engaging in naval battles since 1652.

The Dutch governor who was Peter Stuyvesant, apparently wanted to fight but his multi-national population did not. However, I would say that the Dutch were excellent imperialists and as complicit in slavery as any of the other imperialist nations.

Netherlands held colonies for over 250 years in Indonesia, South Africa, New Guinea, the Caribbean. They were a wealthy nation because of it.

Cheers,

George




George, & Brian,

The Dutch just didn't have the warships that the RN had? I really couldn't name even one? Just how many of their overseas holdings did they lose to the British!? Anyone?

What say you?
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
7/31/2023 3:37:53 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1667 the Dutch give up New Amsterdam to the English! New York! Why couldn't the Dutch compete for colonies like other nations!? Anyone??


The immediate problem for the Dutch governor of New Amsterdam was that four British warships were sitting in the harbour. He didn't have any defences against that.

But prior to that, the Dutch and the English had been great competitors with both seeking dominance for economic reasons. He who controlled trade and shipping would dominate.

The two countries had been engaging in naval battles since 1652.

The Dutch governor who was Peter Stuyvesant, apparently wanted to fight but his multi-national population did not. However, I would say that the Dutch were excellent imperialists and as complicit in slavery as any of the other imperialist nations.

Netherlands held colonies for over 250 years in Indonesia, South Africa, New Guinea, the Caribbean. They were a wealthy nation because of it.

Cheers,

George




George, & Brian,

The Dutch just didn't have the warships that the RN had? I really couldn't name even one? Just how many of their overseas holdings did they lose to the British!? Anyone?

What say you?
MD



Ask the Netherlanders about the "Battle of Chatham" when the Dutch navy surprised the RN at its home base in 1667. Fifteen RN vessels sunk or captured. So there was a time when the Dutch were powerful in trade and with an effective navy.

There were three Anglo-Dutch wars between 1652 and 1657. The Dutch defeated the English at sea in the last two wars.

I believe that the humiliation at Chatham in 1667 motivated the English crown to support an expansion of the RN with an upgrade in ships.

There are other examples of the Dutch navy having bested the RN but I am having trouble recalling them. The name of a famous Dutch naval commander was De Ruyter I believe and he had success against the British and the French navies.

Cheers,

George
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
7/31/2023 7:37:31 PM
Dave, you ask: “The Dutch just didn't have the warships that the RN had? I really couldn't name even one? Just how many of their overseas holdings did they lose to the British!? Anyone?”

If this question comes from the comment of having 4 British ships in New Amsterdam waters (i.e., New York waters), you are missing the point. It was the mere presence of the ships, not the threat they suggested, that was probably he defining issue. Let Wiki tell the story. This is from their entry for the Treaty of Breda 1667: Quote:
Article 3 established the principle of uti possidetis, or "what you have, you hold", with an effective date of 20 May. The Dutch regained Surinam, now part of modern Suriname, while the English kept New Netherland, which was subsequently divided into the colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Delaware.[30]

Articles 4 to 8 applied the same principle to losses of goods or ships, including those that occurred before the war. No indemnities could be levied or punishments imposed, but all existing Letters of Marque were declared void.[31] To allow time to communicate these instructions, Article 7 varied the date on which they would be enforced: 5 September for the English Channel and the North Sea, 5 October for the other European seas, 2 November for the African coast north of the Equator and 24 April 1668 for the rest of the world.[29]

The Dutch, as George suggests, were not an alliance broken at the wheel of RN superiority. I might be tempted to discuss this more fully over a pint of bitters, but for now I would say that the the Raid on Medway (George’s Battle of Chatham) was not necessarily a demonstration of Dutch superior naval ability. Charles II was finding the cost of the war bering heavily on him, and had recalled his fleet to reduce expenses. The ships paying off in the Medway were vulnerable, and the Dutch, under de Witt under de Ruyter, took full advantage of their vulnerability. It was a huge victory, but better seen as a well-executed naval operational plan than an indication of superior ships.

Point, I guess, is that the Dutch lost little – in 1660s terms – they felt they could afford to lose, and retained control of certain places (call them colonies, or simply bases) they considered vital to their trading empire. Eventually, they would fight the British once more over territory both were claiming: think the various South African states and the two Boer Wars. But that was 240 years after the Dutch-English wars of the 1650s-60s. And in the early 1940s they would fight alongside the British against the colossal invasions of the IJA.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
7/31/2023 9:22:33 PM
Quote:
1965 JK Rowling's is born this author is now a billionaire! Is her works on Harry Potter that good!? Comments?

IMHO, not an event of historical importance. At best, it might make a list of daily “milestones”, but it has no historical significance. Is JK Rowling a billionaire? Does that matter?

That she is a clever, manipulative and successful author seems evident. That her works have delighted millions of readers and viewers is clear! But that is not an historic issue.

IMHO, the Harry Potter novels are, uneven, but in toto strike me as a well-conceived and well-executed vision. I’ve read the entire sequence twice, the first time to keep up with my grandsons and the second to test why I was so impressed with the first reading. For the most part, the series held up to a second reading, though some of the magic of Hogwarts is lost, and some of the plot line seems a bit strained. But the Harry Potter series will, I expect, remain a powerful force in tween literature for the foreseeable future.

A quick reality check. The Potter saga doesn’t seem to stand up against another “childhood-to-adulthood” fantasy, the JRR Tolkien Rings trilogy, particularly if you include The Hobbit. The stories are based on the same lore stem, of course, and the growth from childhood fantasy to adult threat is part of both sequences. For richness and depth, I would argue that Tolkien generated a much more demanding world than Rowling. But her works are brilliant in their own right. The comparison might almost be seen as unkind.

Despite all that, her birthday is a meaningless date of no significance. Date of publication of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone is both more important and more appropriate, and even then it’s hard to see this as historically significant.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
8/1/2023 7:52:38 AM
Quote:
On 1 Aug 1714, Anne – Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland – died without issue. This brought to an end the House of Stuart’s hold on the monarchy, which had begun with the accession of James 1 (James VI of Scotland) in 1603.

The Stuart period was tempestuous but culturally enriching. In 111 years, there were six monarchs, a civil war, the beheading of a king, an eleven-year interregnum under Oliver Cromwell, the collapse of Presbyterian control, a reinstatement of Kingship and all it entailed, and a “Glorious” revolution. We gained the King James Bible, the poetry of John Donne and the Metaphysical poets, and the thunderous prose and exalted poetry of John Milton.

Anne, whose death falls on this day, was the second daughter of the Duke of York, younger brother of Charles II, who would become – for a brief three years – James II but would be driven from the throne for his Catholicism. They were the only two offspring (of eight) to reach adulthood.

The elder daughter, Mary, was raised Protestant and married William of Orange in the Netherlands. William III of Orange invaded England (by request), driving James II (yes, his wife’s father) into exile and bringing William and Mary to the throne. Officially, they were William III and II and Mary II. Their marriage provided no children reaching adulthood, and when they died the only Stuart left was Anne, the younger daughter now married to Prince George of Denmark.

Anne had all the makings of a good Queen. But she had health issues which led to increasing obecity, As well, she was unlucky in bearing children; after 17 pregnancies, she had no living child at her death.

Her death in 1714 would lead to the invitation from Parliament to George of Hanover to become King of England. IIUC, he spoke no English and had no interest in living in England. He had one positive character, however. He was Protestant.

Cheers
Brian G



Hi Brian,

Your right about JK Rowlings, really not being historically significant, as far as our treatment of it here on MHO! But at least it kept our youth reading, as did JRR Tolkien's Lord of the rings trilogy, & Harry Potter novels, which is more than I can say for Pokemon, & the forms of Youth gaming going on!! Our youth have been kidnapped by fantasy tech! Wasting a good part of their lives!? I have lost my son impart to it! What say you? Is it a problem?.Anyone??

BTW back to history last year you had an excellent post on English Monarchy, hope you don't mind me taking the liberty to site it again!?

Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
8/1/2023 8:54:33 AM
Quote:

Despite all that, her birthday is a meaningless date of no significance. Date of publication of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone is both more important and more appropriate, and even then it’s hard to see this as historically significant.

Cheers
Brian G


JK noted that she had sent dozens of 1st Edition Philosopher's Stone books to directors and producers, and only one had shown interest. None of the others have shown up last I looked. They go for a pretty penny these days, but not after they've been through the recycle process.
Page 83 of 115 (Page:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82    83    84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115 )

© 2024 - MilitaryHistoryOnline.com LLC