MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 99 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
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/17/2023 8:55:47 AM
Thanks Trevor,

I don't have time to read Mikes Article in it's entirety just yet, but it looks like a good one! I'll respond later! I'm traveling across state, this morning!

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
11/17/2023 8:57:33 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Hi Dave,

Sherman and “ Total War “ ?

Hard war, certainly. Harsh war, to a significant degree.

But the phrase “ Total War “ doesn’t apply, in my opinion.

The warfare of Antiquity was total : “ Carthage delenda est “; cities not only destroyed; but all inhabitants put to the sword - or worse. Likewise the Nazi Soviet warfare of 1941-45. That’s “ total “.

Sherman was quite genteel in comparison.

Suggest refer to our Mike_C’s article .

Regards, Phil





Hi Phil,

Total War, on Sherman's march to the sea? I guess it depends on to what degree? Surely the other instances you mentioned were more horrific, total war, but in definitions of some history people, Sherman's March, including Civilians being victims would make Sherman's March being "total war" because it totally effected everyone, even Civilians? Perhaps there is another term for including civilians in a war, but what is it?? As far as Mike C's article on total war, I couldn't find it on MHO??

Thanks,& Regards,
MD


Moved to the new page, for easier discussion!
----------------------------------
"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
11/17/2023 8:58:41 AM
Quote:
Hi Dave,

My reading of it is that there was little to no molestation or harm done to civilians in the path of Sherman's army. In times of old, everyone and everything was fair game. Phil references Rome's wars against Carthage; Rome put to the sword or enslaved every citizen of Carthage when they finally conquered the great city. All resources were plundered and the city reduced to rubble. To me, that's total war; a complete reduction of the enemy and its infrastructure and system of government. Even during WW2, efforts were made by the Allied powers to avoid wanton plundering of German cities by occupying Allied forces.

Sherman cut a path of destruction, but the areas outside of this path survived generally unscathed. In North Carolina, Sherman's forces went to great lengths to avoid destruction of property, recognising that NC had been a less than enthusiastic member of the Confederacy. However, the opposite was true in South Carolina, where much property was destroyed or looted, as the army recognised their years of brutal service had been triggered by the attempted secession of SC at the start.

Cheers,

Colin



Hi Colin,

I see your point!

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
11/17/2023 9:01:22 AM
Moved to new page for easier reference!

Suggest refer to our Mike_C’s article . below,

[Read More]

Trevor
----------------------------------
"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
11/17/2023 9:08:03 AM


Checking 11-17 in history, for new topics, comments anyone??

1558 Elizabeth I becomes Queen of England, How was she influential in the expansion of the British Empire!? What say you??

1800 1st session of Congress, did the Legislative Branch get more done back then?? Why does it always seem they the houses are at odds with each other? Comments, anyone??

1869 the Suez Canal opens, Did the British have control of it back then?? Anyone?

1871 the NRA comes to the forefront, what's their influence today?? Comments??

1887 Gen. Monty of GB was born! How did he win in N.Africa? Was he Britain's best General?? Anyone?

Regards,
MD

BTW let's continue the discussion on why the CW was not quite total war, maybe working on getting there! Just not quite there, yet?? What say you??
----------------------------------
"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
11/17/2023 1:45:54 PM
Quote:
1869 the Suez Canal opens, Did the British have control of it back then?? Anyone?


It was built by a French Company, the Suez Canal Company. That arrangement was a partnership with the leader of Egypt. The French company was granted a 99 year lease to operate the canal by the Egyptian ruler. The principle figure of the company was De Lessep who had previously tried to build the Panama Canal but failed at that endeavour.

Now this was a publicly traded company and in 1875 the Egyptian ruler was hard up for cash so he offered his shares and Britain bought them up. Britain now owned 44% of the shares of the company.

Egypt wasn't taking very much of the profits despite being the lease holder. The deal didn't quite last 99 years because in 1956, Nasser of Egypt nationalized the canal and that precipitated the Suez Canal Crisis. That saw British, French and Israeli troops enter the canal zone to take it over. The Israelis were the first foreign troops to enter Egyptian territory and they were the first to leave.

The US wanted everyone out as the Soviets were making noise about nuclear Armageddon in Europe if the British, French and Israelis didn't get out of Egypt. The Soviets were also supplying Egypt with weapons. Pres. Eisenhower wanted to avoid a conflict with the USSR and he told the others to remove their troops. Britain hadn't told the US that they were going to send troops to Egypt and that upset the US. The US has not always been forthcoming with information about its movements but hey, the US was in the economic drivers seat after WWII and Eisenhower threatened economic sanctions against all three of the invaders.



By 1957 the troops of all nations had pulled out and the UN had sent in peacekeepers. The UN initiative was the brain child of Lester B. Pearson of Canada, a future PM. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to maintain the peace in this hot zone. This was the first use of an armed peacekeeping force by the UN. This UNEF 1 force did a good job. It was stationed in Egypt and patrolled the border with Israel. Canadian troops were there but so were the troops of about 20 other countries through the years.

Cheers,

George



Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/18/2023 6:08:52 AM
1916 : Official date of the end of the Battle of the Somme. Has there ever been a more terrible battle ?

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
11/18/2023 8:06:29 AM
Quote:
Quote:
1869 the Suez Canal opens, Did the British have control of it back then?? Anyone?


It was built by a French Company, the Suez Canal Company. That arrangement was a partnership with the leader of Egypt. The French company was granted a 99 year lease to operate the canal by the Egyptian ruler. The principle figure of the company was De Lessep who had previously tried to build the Panama Canal but failed at that endeavour.

Now this was a publicly traded company and in 1875 the Egyptian ruler was hard up for cash so he offered his shares and Britain bought them up. Britain now owned 44% of the shares of the company.

Egypt wasn't taking very much of the profits despite being the lease holder. The deal didn't quite last 99 years because in 1956, Nasser of Egypt nationalized the canal and that precipitated the Suez Canal Crisis. That saw British, French and Israeli troops enter the canal zone to take it over. The Israelis were the first foreign troops to enter Egyptian territory and they were the first to leave.

The US wanted everyone out as the Soviets were making noise about nuclear Armageddon in Europe if the British, French and Israelis didn't get out of Egypt. The Soviets were also supplying Egypt with weapons. Pres. Eisenhower wanted to avoid a conflict with the USSR and he told the others to remove their troops. Britain hadn't told the US that they were going to send troops to Egypt and that upset the US. The US has not always been forthcoming with information about its movements but hey, the US was in the economic drivers seat after WWII and Eisenhower threatened economic sanctions against all three of the invaders.



By 1957 the troops of all nations had pulled out and the UN had sent in peacekeepers. The UN initiative was the brain child of Lester B. Pearson of Canada, a future PM. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to maintain the peace in this hot zone. This was the first use of an armed peacekeeping force by the UN. This UNEF 1 force did a good job. It was stationed in Egypt and patrolled the border with Israel. Canadian troops were there but so were the troops of about 20 other countries through the years.

Cheers,

George




Hi George,

That certainly was an international crisis, when Nasser wanted the Soviets aid involved the crisis reached a dangerous stage. Glad the Canadian future PM, & the UN, cooler heads, prevailed! ?

BTW were there any UN casualties?

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
11/18/2023 8:15:35 AM
Quote:
1916 : Official date of the end of the Battle of the Somme. Has there ever been a more terrible battle ?

Regards, Phil



Hi Phil,

In WWII, from a Russian, German perspective. Perhaps the horrific Battle of Stalingrad with over 2 million casualties?

What say you MHO??
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
11/18/2023 8:27:54 AM

Checking 11-17 in history, not yet commented on?

1558 Elizabeth I becomes Queen of England, How was she influential in the expansion of the British Empire!? What say you??

1800 1st session of Congress, did the Legislative Branch get more done back then?? Why does it always seem they the houses are at odds with each other? Comments, anyone??

1869 the Suez Canal opens, Did the British have control of it back then?? Good post by George on it, thanks!

1871 the NRA comes to the forefront, in influence.?

1887 Gen. Monty of GB was born! How did he win in N.Africa? Was he Britain's best General?? Anyone?

& today, 11-18 in world history we see, the following! Comments?

1863 Lincoln heads to Gettysburg to make his famous address speech! I visited the spot near the National Cemetery where he gave his speech! It felt erie, & moving! Anyone else get that feeling at Gettysburg? Comments?

1903 the US acquired a 10 mile wide strip to finish the Panama Canal! How did they manage this? Was the situation similar to the British, & the Suez Canal!? Can anyone compare the two??

1905 A leader from Denmark becomes the King of Norway!? How did this happen? Anyone?

1923, Alan Shepard becomes the 1st NASA astronaut in space was born! 1st dogs, the chimps, finally man?? Comments??

1978 the Rev. Jim Jones poison s his followers in Guyana! Another example of Religious extremists beliefs!? What say you? How could this happen? Sick??

Lots to discuss here!?
Regards, & carry on!
MD

2015 New Zealand Rugby star dies from a heart attack! Can someone post that pregame display that the New Zealand national team does, before matches? Do you think it's intimidating?? What's the history behind it?? What say you??

BTW Mike C's article on MHO on modern total war was great, my question was only on total war, not modern total war! The CW is definitely not modern, however on a limited scale for example,, Sherman's March to the Sea was, IMHO, total war??
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/18/2023 12:22:28 PM
Quote:
Quote:
1916 : Official date of the end of the Battle of the Somme. Has there ever been a more terrible battle ?

Regards, Phil



Hi Phil,

In WWII, from a Russian, German perspective. Perhaps the horrific Battle of Stalingrad with over 2 million casualties?

What say you MHO??
Regards,
MD


Stalingrad is the default option that most people cite as a battle even worse than the Somme.

Actually, Stalingrad is more often compared with Verdun, another byword for horror, fought at the same time as the Somme, and, like Stalingrad, a battle of symbolism : Stalingrad has been described as “ Verdun on the Volga “.

The two million Stalingrad casualties contained a significant proportion of prisoners, more so than the 1.1 million casualties of the Somme, of whom more than ninety percent were killed or wounded. The 1916 battle lasted 141 days, while the Stalingrad operations lasted from July 1942 until the end of January 1943, and was spread over a much bigger area, from the Don to the Volga.
But the final phase of the Stalingrad battle was condensed into a hellish cauldron of freezing rubble, with starvation, typhus and even suicide accounting for thousands of victims, in addition to the most intense and desperate fighting. And of the Germans, Italians, Romanian and Hungarian prisoners who entered soviet captivity, appalling numbers were to perish.

Stalingrad transcends because it was fought by totalitarian regimes in a war of annihilation. The Soviet regime executed thousands of their own troops who were suspected of faltering in the face of the enemy.

The Battle of the Somme, in contrast, was fought by liberal, democratic nations with the British contingent consisting largely of volunteers. That such people could endure a protracted slaughter such as that battle entailed is still something that is hard to believe, let alone understand.

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
11/18/2023 8:57:34 PM
Quote:
Hi George,

That certainly was an international crisis, when Nasser wanted the Soviets aid involved the crisis reached a dangerous stage. Glad the Canadian future PM, & the UN, cooler heads, prevailed! ?

BTW were there any UN casualties?

Regards,
MD


The mission in Egypt lasted for years. By Feb. of 1957 there were over 6000 personnel from ten different countries working with the UNEF 1 mission. They were all stationed in Egypt. The original UN plan was to place troops on either side of the demarcation line but the Israelis refused to allow foreign troops on their soil.

According to Veterans Affairs Canada, over 150 UN troops lost their lives on UNEF. 32 Canadians were killed. In some cases lives were lost when the Israelis fired on UN convoys. More UN peacekeepers have been killed in other missions to Egypt since the UNEF mission ended.

The UNEF mission lasted until 1967 when Egypt asked the UN to end the mission.

Since that time and to the present over 3500 UN peacekeepers have lost their lives in missions around the world.

Cheers,

George
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/18/2023 9:22:39 PM

Elizabeth I as monarch – on day late


Background: in 1558 Elizabeth became the fourth ruler of England in 11 years; the fifth ruler if you consider the failed proclamation for Lady Jane Grey. England was torn to various degrees by issues of faith, of power, of national wealth. She was in a state of cultural transition (late medieval [?] to Renaissance) at a time of explosive expansion of the known world and scientific turmoil. Elizabeth I was female, taking the throne from another female (Mary I) who provided indications that a female might not be a good choice as a ruler. She was 25 years old on taking the throne, and would have to rely on advisors if she wished to succeed, but had no reason to trust any of Mary I’s advisors.


That was her “square one”.


IMHO, as a monarch she faced the following challenges:

•  securing the official link between the English people and the Church of England;

  supporting  expansionism, in the face of broadly accepted catholic dicta concerning ownership and power in new world discoveries;

  exerting England’s right of self-determination in matters foreign and domestic;

  rebuilding the Treasury of England.


She was graced with a long reign, and made headway on most – but not all – of these issues. She defeated Spain’s Armada, in effect killing any claim by a Catholic monarch on England (Philip of Spain was, after all, Mary I’s husband). She improved the status and solidity of the C of E despite tensions with English Catholics. She supported and “franchised” privateers to bring Spanish treasure to English ports, thus enhancing the Queen’s treasury. 


She had, IMHO, nothing to do with expansion of empire; that was not a real issue until long after she was dead. She may indeed have established an English sea presence, which in turn may have made England’s first colonial commitments possible. But empire and global expansion were marks of the Stuarts, not the Tudors.


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
11/19/2023 7:34:06 AM
Quote:


Stalingrad is the default option that most people cite as a battle even worse than the Somme.

Actually, Stalingrad is more often compared with Verdun, another byword for horror, fought at the same time as the Somme, and, like Stalingrad, a battle of symbolism : Stalingrad has been described as “ Verdun on the Volga “.

The two million Stalingrad casualties contained a significant proportion of prisoners, more so than the 1.1 million casualties of the Somme, of whom more than ninety percent were killed or wounded. The 1916 battle lasted 141 days, while the Stalingrad operations lasted from July 1942 until the end of January 1943, and was spread over a much bigger area, from the Don to the Volga.

Stalingrad transcends because it was fought by totalitarian regimes in a war of annihilation. The Soviet regime executed thousands of their own troops who were suspected of faltering in the face of the enemy.

The Battle of the Somme, in contrast, was fought by liberal, democratic nations with the British contingent consisting largely of volunteers. That such people could endure a protracted slaughter such as that battle entailed is still something that is hard to believe, let alone understand.

Regards, Phil



Hi Phil,

Both battles were hellish in their own way, the Somme, which ended on Nov. 18, 1916. It resonated with the Commonwealth of Britain involving most if not all it's member nations! Certainly a horrific costly battle not to be forgotten by them!

Least we forget!
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
11/19/2023 7:36:42 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Hi George,

That certainly was an international crisis, when Nasser wanted the Soviets aid involved the crisis reached a dangerous stage. Glad the Canadian future PM, & the UN, cooler heads, prevailed! ?

BTW were there any UN casualties?

Regards,
MD


The mission in Egypt lasted for years. By Feb. of 1957 there were over 6000 personnel from ten different countries working with the UNEF 1 mission. They were all stationed in Egypt. The original UN plan was to place troops on either side of the demarcation line but the Israelis refused to allow foreign troops on their soil.

According to Veterans Affairs Canada, over 150 UN troops lost their lives on UNEF. 32 Canadians were killed. In some cases lives were lost when the Israelis fired on UN convoys. More UN peacekeepers have been killed in other missions to Egypt since the UNEF mission ended.

The UNEF mission lasted until 1967 when Egypt asked the UN to end the mission.

Since that time and to the present over 3500 UN peacekeepers have lost their lives in missions around the world.

Cheers,

George


Wasn't Kai working along with UN??
----------------------------------
"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
11/19/2023 7:52:02 AM
Looking at 11-19, A few new topics occur, any new points?? Anyone?

1794 SC Justice John Jay, makes a peace treaty with the British! Was it a fair treaty or exploitive? Comments?

1863 Lincoln at Gettysburg, was John Wilkes Booth there as well?? Anyone?

2017 Insane murder, Charles Satan Manson dies in prison! What say you about this nut??

Seize the day!
MD

BTW Brian, thanks for the great synopsis of Elizabeth I's reign, excellent points made!!
----------------------------------
"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
11/19/2023 8:08:35 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hi George,

That certainly was an international crisis, when Nasser wanted the Soviets aid involved the crisis reached a dangerous stage. Glad the Canadian future PM, & the UN, cooler heads, prevailed! ?

BTW were there any UN casualties?

Regards,
MD


The mission in Egypt lasted for years. By Feb. of 1957 there were over 6000 personnel from ten different countries working with the UNEF 1 mission. They were all stationed in Egypt. The original UN plan was to place troops on either side of the demarcation line but the Israelis refused to allow foreign troops on their soil.

According to Veterans Affairs Canada, over 150 UN troops lost their lives on UNEF. 32 Canadians were killed. In some cases lives were lost when the Israelis fired on UN convoys. More UN peacekeepers have been killed in other missions to Egypt since the UNEF mission ended.

The UNEF mission lasted until 1967 when Egypt asked the UN to end the mission.

Since that time and to the present over 3500 UN peacekeepers have lost their lives in missions around the world.

Cheers,

George


Wasn't Kai working along with UN??



Norway has contributed peacekeepers to UN missions. Norwegian soldiers were part of UNEF, the first UN armed peacekeeping mission to Egypt. In fact, and I need to verify this but I think that a Norwegian soldier was the first to lose his life in Palestine prior to UNEF. Peacekeeping is a dangerous mission and requires special training that may be beyond the scope of the training of soldiers in some countries.

Israel has attacked UN bases. I recall one air strike on a UN observation base in Lebanon during the 2006 Lenanon War. Israel had informed the UN that it would shoot anyone found in an arbitrarily declared zone in Lebanon. This zone was in the UN zone of operations. The IDF air force bombed this OP many times on July 6, 2006. They were phoned multiple times to tell them to call off the strikes so they knew that they were attacking UN troops. Four UN peacekeepers from Finland, China, Canada and Austria were killed. Israel claimed that the UN post got caught in the crossfire between IDF and Hezbollah. The UN reported that there were no Hezbollah operations near the post at that time. As well the post was eventually hit by a precision guided bunker busting bomb delivered by an IDF aircraft.

That is why I sometimes look with a more critical eye at Israeli operations. Not all is what they claim it is, at times.

It is entirely possible that Kaii served on peace keeping missions in many places in the world. I just checked and Norway has participated in over 40 UN missions.

Cheers,

George
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/19/2023 12:14:47 PM
Quote:
Quote:


Stalingrad is the default option that most people cite as a battle even worse than the Somme.

Actually, Stalingrad is more often compared with Verdun, another byword for horror, fought at the same time as the Somme, and, like Stalingrad, a battle of symbolism : Stalingrad has been described as “ Verdun on the Volga “.

The two million Stalingrad casualties contained a significant proportion of prisoners, more so than the 1.1 million casualties of the Somme, of whom more than ninety percent were killed or wounded. The 1916 battle lasted 141 days, while the Stalingrad operations lasted from July 1942 until the end of January 1943, and was spread over a much bigger area, from the Don to the Volga.

Stalingrad transcends because it was fought by totalitarian regimes in a war of annihilation. The Soviet regime executed thousands of their own troops who were suspected of faltering in the face of the enemy.

The Battle of the Somme, in contrast, was fought by liberal, democratic nations with the British contingent consisting largely of volunteers. That such people could endure a protracted slaughter such as that battle entailed is still something that is hard to believe, let alone understand.

Regards, Phil



Hi Phil,

Both battles were hellish in their own way, the Somme, which ended on Nov. 18, 1916. It resonated with the Commonwealth of Britain involving most if not all it's member nations! Certainly a horrific costly battle not to be forgotten by them!

Least we forget!
Regards,
MD


Do you know what, Dave ? The thing that grips me is the willingness of people from our western, liberal, democratic societies to go into a meat grinder and pay the price. These are not people who are forced to do this ; although I would be naive if I didn’t acknowledge the pressures that were brought to bear.

The soldiers at Stalingrad came from totalitarian regimes which were coercive and ruthless to a hideous degree. No wonder Stalingrad was such a nightmare.

The men of the Somme a generation earlier were not exposed to anything like that coercion; but they too went into an ordeal that, by any reckoning, was horrific beyond belief.

What does that imply ?

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
11/19/2023 8:09:41 PM
It got me out of Indiana.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2023 4:02:02 AM
Quote:
It got me out of Indiana.


Please don’t leave us in suspense !

“ Indiana wants me

Lord, I can’t go back there “. !

😂


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
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2023 4:25:28 AM
How far are soldiers from our cherished western democratic societies willing to endure battlefield carnage before they refuse to fight any more ?

The stories from the American Civil War and the First World War suggest that they are willing to suffer an enormous loss of life and still carry on.

Even to the extent of reenlisting when their three year terms that they initially volunteered for had expired.

There is, of course, the crucial matter of home front morale and the prospect of hardship and dissent undermining the military effort.

The examples of Nazi Soviet totalitarianism are so very different from what I’ve just alluded to. Stalingrad versus the Somme throws these differences into relief.

Ten thousand Soviet troops were executed by dint of Stalin’s “ Not one step back “ order in the Stalingrad campaign alone. The Germans put significant numbers of their soldiers to death on the insistence of Nazi leaders .

Then there were massive atrocities committed against civilians who were deemed to have failed to step up to the mark.

This question of how societies conduct warfare through the ages is profoundly interesting to me, especially in the light of current horrors from Ukraine and the Middle East.

A lot to discuss. Please pitch in if you’re interested. I promise not to flog a dead horse if the topic doesn’t appear to gain any traction.

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
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2023 8:44:27 AM
1917 : Cambrai .

The first really big breakthrough made by tanks.

Success was astonishing.

So was subsequent disappointment .

German response was equally striking.

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
11/20/2023 8:45:29 AM
Hi Phil,

The enlisted or volunteer soldier surely seems to be able to take more of a hit than we would otherwise expect.

On the mythical story behind British soldiers being known as 'Tommies', we recall the fate of Private Thomas Atkins, mortally founded, with Arthur Wellesley enquiring as to his welfare. Atkins replied "it's all right, sir. It's all in a day's work" before he perished. For a shilling a day men like Atkins braved shot, shell, disease and bayonet in the service of their King and country. What a peculiar notion this was, as prior to the First World War there many pubs in cities and garrison towns who would sooner shut their doors than serve men like Atkins due to their reputation for drunken and disorderly conduct. They were trusted to do the necessary dirty work abroad, but were seldom welcome at the bar. I suppose the war changed that; five million men in uniform might alter your perceptions of uniformed service.

Whilst the citizen volunteers won the respect of the old sweat regulars by the way they stuck it out, I think the regulars also won the respect of their civilian counterparts who served alongside them. The winning combo of rotten food, muddy trenches and freezing billets, mind numbing regulations and rough uniforms would be enough to win the understanding of most. Why the citizen volunteers stuck it out in both world wars probably links more to the cause they were fighting for. Likewise, huge numbers of men, particularly on the Confederate side, stuck it out in the ACW to the very bitter end when surrender, with a warm meal three times a day was the only sane option, because of their belief in 'the cause'.

Cheers,
Colin

----------------------------------
"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."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2023 9:23:19 AM
Thanks for your response, Colin.

The Great War of 1914-18 was, in the British experience, associated with the volunteer army. This must not obscure the fact that conscription produced the levies that fought in the later stages of the war. The continental armies were predicated on conscription throughout. Yet, it seems, the Prussian system went hand in hand with a peculiar enlightenment. The German nation enjoyed higher standards of social welfare than the British pre 1914, and , while the British executed about three hundred of their soldiers 1914-18, the Germans shot far fewer. The Italians were very harsh by comparison. Not too sure about the French.

The Australians were absolutely unwilling to allow their men to be executed by British military authorities , but I get the impression that Aussie soldiers were quick to deal with their own brothers in arms if they were guilty of letting their mates down. Sometimes elite units form their own private codes that , while seeming to impart some immunity from outside authority, are lethally harsh if they dispense punishment “ internally” in their own private way. The Chindits in Burma were rumoured to have adopted this approach.

I would like to learn more about the Grand Levees ( spelling?) of Napoleon’s armies. I’m so looking forward to the new Ridley Scott film, out in a couple of days !

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
11/20/2023 10:47:32 AM
Looking at 11-19 & 11-20 A few new topics occur, any new points?? Anyone?

1794 SC Justice John Jay, makes a peace treaty with the British! Was it a fair treaty or exploitive? Comments?

1863 Lincoln at Gettysburg, was John Wilkes Booth there as well?? Anyone?

2017 Fruitcake murder, Charles Satan Manson dies in prison! What say you about this nut??

& today 11-20 in history,

1815 the Quadruple Alliance is formed did it stop Napoleon?? How?

1820 the US whaling ship Essex, sinks?? So was Moby Dick, Melville's novel based on facts?? Anyone??

1917 for the 1st time in warfare Tanks are used in the Battle of Cambria! Who & how were they developed? Were they very effective in WWI? Anyone, on Tanks, & the Battle of Cambria?? Tanks a lot!? ☺

1925 Robert Kennedy was born sadly assassination cut what might have been a future President, short! Comments?

1947 Queen Elizabeth II marries Louis Mountbatten, at West Minster Abbey! How did this marriage help Great Britain or was it bad for the country?? What say you??

1975 Spain's leader Francisco Franco dies, from a heart attack! Was he a good or evil leader? What was up with the pre WWII civil war in Spain? Why did other European leaders get involved? even Hitler? Can someone help us out??? Anyone?

1992 huge fire in Windsor Castle destroys 115+ rooms! How did this happen? & How was it restored? Anyone with a good website on it??

1998 American Tobacco companies are to pay out over 200 billion dollars!? Was this just??

Lots to discuss here! Please pitch in!!!!

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
11/20/2023 10:56:17 AM
Quote:


Ten thousand Soviet troops were executed by dint of Stalin’s “ Not one step back “ order in the Stalingrad campaign alone. The Germans put significant numbers of their soldiers to death on the insistence of Nazi leaders .

Then there were massive atrocities committed against civilians who were deemed to have failed to step up to the mark.

A lot to discuss. Please pitch in if you’re interested. I promise not to flog a dead horse if the topic doesn’t appear to gain any traction.

Regards, Phil



Hey Phil,

Why doesn't Uncle Joe Stalin shoot himself then! I'm sure he took some steps back!? Gee killing 10,000 Russian troops for taking a step back!?

No wonder Stalin is dispised today!!?

Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2023 11:56:39 AM
Quote:
Quote:


Ten thousand Soviet troops were executed by dint of Stalin’s “ Not one step back “ order in the Stalingrad campaign alone. The Germans put significant numbers of their soldiers to death on the insistence of Nazi leaders .

Then there were massive atrocities committed against civilians who were deemed to have failed to step up to the mark.

A lot to discuss. Please pitch in if you’re interested. I promise not to flog a dead horse if the topic doesn’t appear to gain any traction.

Regards, Phil



Hey Phil,

Why doesn't Uncle Joe Stalin shoot himself then! I'm sure he took some steps back!? Gee killing 10,000 Russian troops for taking a step back!?

No wonder Stalin is dispised today!!?

Regards,
MD


Yes : he’s an abomination by our points of reference, isn’t he ?

And yet, there are plenty of Russians who glory in his rule, and seek to recreate the power that was enjoyed by the Soviet Union. Look no further than Vladimir Putin.

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
11/20/2023 12:00:19 PM
Quote:
1815 the Quadruple Alliance is formed did it stop Napoleon?? How?


Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia allied to defeat Napoleon. But they had been fighting him together since 1813. The Napoleonic Wars lasted 15 years though with many battles fought between 1800 and 1815. But Napoleon had been vying for power and control in France before that time period.

Of note, the US attacked Britain in 1812 while Britain and allies were in a desperate struggle with Napoleon. So Britain was fighting two wars with the War of 1812 considered a side show though an expense that Britain did not need.

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2023 8:15:57 PM
Quote:
1794 SC Justice John Jay, makes a peace treaty with the British! Was it a fair treaty or exploitive? Comments?


The treaty is actually called Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, between His Britannick Majesty; and the United States of America, by their President, with the Advice and Consent of their Senate.

The chief negotiator for the US was John Jay who was the Chief Justice of the US at the time. The chief negotiator for Great Britain was William Grenville (Lord Grenville). In the US the treaty was signed into law by Pres. George Washington.

This was a fairly important treaty as it tightened up some loose ends that had not been addressed in the Treaty of Paris that ended the American Revolution but it was quite a bone of contention in the US as its critics felt that too much was conceded to Britain.

The terms of the treaty were:

1. Peace between the two countries was affirmed

2. Britain would vacate the forts that it continued to occupy in the US west by June 1, 1796
Settlers in the territory near the British forts could stay and retain ownership of land and property. They would not be compelled to take out US citizenship but could do so if they wished.

3. First Nations people would be free to cross the border as they wished. The British wanted this because their fur trade operations depended upon full access to FN traders wherever they may be.

4. FN people did not have to pay duty on anything that they purchased and brought to the other country.

5. Commissioners were appointed from both sides to confirm the boundary between the US and British North America.
6. Britain would open trade to US interests and stop discriminatory practices against US shipping. The US would receive trading privileges in Britain.

7. American merchants who carried debt with British interests dating before the revolution would have to provide compensation.


Of note today is that Canada is not a signatory to this treaty. It does affect the First Nations people because of that. The US does allow FN from the Canadian side to cross freely but they must prove that they are at least, 50% American Indian blood, if they are to be allowed to work in the US. Canada does not regard this clause as binding and does not reciprocate.

So how was it received in the US? Well there were a number of burnings of John Jay in effigy in many places in the US. The Republican Party was particularly upset feeling that this treaty meant that the US was getting too cozy with former enemy Britain and that that was a slap in the face to former allies, the French. Britain and France were at war in 1794.

France was upset that the US had signed this treaty.

Republicans were upset by what the treaty did not address. It did not address the fact that Britain was fomenting unrest among the Indians of the Ohio Valley. It did not seek compensation for the fact that Britain stopped American ships to search for deserters nor did it ask for compensation for slaves that Britain had accepted as free men and transported to freedom in British colonies.

The Federalist Party in the US did approve of the treaty. Despite being a nationalist party, they felt that peace with Britain was wise. Certainly that party and President Washington did not want to go to war with Britain in support of France.

Peace lasted until Jefferson became President and he was more of a war hawk who coveted British North America. Relations went downhill with his appointment as President and continued to slide until war broke out in 1812.

Graffiti found on walls in Boston after the signing of the treaty

Quote:
"Damn John Jay! Damn everyone who won't damn John Jay!! Damn everyone that won't put lights in his windows and sit up all night damning John Jay!!!"


[Read More]

Cheers,

George


Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2023 8:28:27 PM
Quote:


Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia allied to defeat Napoleon. But they had been fighting him together since 1813. The Napoleonic Wars lasted 15 years though with many battles fought between 1800 and 1815.

Cheers,

George



4 against 1, not fair to Napoleon!?
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/21/2023 3:14:40 AM
Quote:
Quote:


Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia allied to defeat Napoleon. But they had been fighting him together since 1813. The Napoleonic Wars lasted 15 years though with many battles fought between 1800 and 1815.

Cheers,

George



4 against 1, not fair to Napoleon!?


There’s a degree of agreement that Napoleon’s ability to hold such odds at bay for so long rates as a supreme military achievement.

He put up a terrific fight and was , perhaps, more formidable in his final battles than he had been in his earlier triumphs.

Not that I know enough to opine with authority, but the Battle of the Nations was an extraordinary affair.

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
11/21/2023 9:13:18 AM
Hi Phil,

Your correct, what a complicated battle it was involved! As battles go the 4 day Battle of the Nations was horrific!? As Napoleon would say " Last year all of Europe marched with us, today all Europe marches against us "!! Gettysburg was only 3 days, & only 2 opponents against each other!?

Any comparisons?
Regards,
MD

BTW The new movie on Napoleon is breaking in theaters soon, hear any thing about it??
----------------------------------
"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
11/21/2023 9:20:30 AM
Hey guys,

Yesterday 11-20 in world history, the following occurred!

1815 the Quadruple Alliance is formed did it stop Napoleon?? & How did The battle of Nations, currently discussing, play into it!?? Anyone?

1820 the US whaling ship Essex, sinks?? So was Moby Dick, Melville's novel based on facts?? Anyone??

1925 Robert Kennedy was born sadly assassination cut what might have been a future President, short! Comments?

1992 huge fire in Windsor Castle destroys 115+ rooms! How did this happen? & How was it restored? Anyone with a good website on it??

1998 American Tobacco companies are to pay out over 200 billion dollars!? Was this just??

& 11-21 today's events,

1806 Napoleon tries to blockade Great Britain! The Continental System!? Say what?? How effective could this possibly be against the RN?? Anyone??

2002 NATO expands with 7 more x Soviet countries! Why didn't Ukraine join then? Are they members now?? Will they ultimately survive Russian invasion? What say you??

Lots to discuss here! Please pitch in!!!!

Seize the day!
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/21/2023 11:23:47 AM
Quote:
Hi Phil,

Your correct, what a complicated battle it was involved! As battles go the 4 day Battle of the Nations was horrific!? As Napoleon would say " Last year all of Europe marched with us, today all Europe marches against us "!! Gettysburg was only 3 days, & only 2 opponents against each other!?

Any comparisons?
Regards,
MD

BTW The new movie on Napoleon is breaking in theaters soon, hear any thing about it??


The Battle of Leipzig, also known as The Battle of the Nations, was a colossal engagement that dwarfed even Gettysburg.

Four hundred thousand artillery rounds were fired, and several hundred thousand men were engaged. One year after the end of the battle, the residents of the local villages were still struggling to bury the dead.

The civilians in the vicinity were afflicted with deadly illnesses after the armies had withdrawn, such was the squalor of the battlefield and its debris, and the very contagions that the soldiers brought with them.

From some very cursory reading that I’ve attempted, it’s apparent that, even after he withdrew into France, pursued by the coalition of several allies, Napoleon was able to inflict some sharp defeats in early 1814 , despite the odds against him.

He relied largely on levies of green troops, since so many of his veterans had died or been disabled, and he was vastly outnumbered, so these achievements are all the more remarkable .

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
11/21/2023 1:23:49 PM
Napoleon attempted to destroy the British economy. He wanted to prevent Britain from trading with other countries in Europe and he put pressure on other countries to ensure that they would not trade with Britain. That includes Russia. So did Britain have any other option but to fight?

Just how close was Napoleon to invading Britain? Was it even feasible? Had he assembled ships for an amphibious landing? I really don't know that much about Napoleon's strategies. I do know that France lost its navy at Trafalgar.

"England expects that every man will do his duty". Horatio Nelson

Cheers,

George

EDIT: Another question. With the defeat of the French navy at Trafalgar in 1905, how did Napoleon intend to enforce the blockade of Great Britain to limit Britain's access to the continent?
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/21/2023 6:41:23 PM
Quote:
Napoleon attempted to destroy the British economy. He wanted to prevent Britain from trading with other countries in Europe and he put pressure on other countries to ensure that they would not trade with Britain. That includes Russia. So did Britain have any other option but to fight?

Just how close was Napoleon to invading Britain? Was it even feasible? Had he assembled ships for an amphibious landing? I really don't know that much about Napoleon's strategies. I do know that France lost its navy at Trafalgar.

"England expects that every man will do his duty". Horatio Nelson

Cheers,

George



EDIT: Another question. With the defeat of the French navy at Trafalgar in 1905, how did Napoleon intend to enforce the blockade of Great Britain to limit Britain's access to the continent?


George,

This is a controversial thing to say, and I’m out of my depth when it comes to necessary knowledge, but I can’t escape the conviction that Britain was more imperilled by Napoleon in the early nineteenth century than she was to be by Hitler in 1940.

Napoleon saw Britain as his principal foe, and Russia as a nuisance that had to be dealt with in order to settle accounts with the “ Nation of shopkeepers “.

It was the other way round as far as Hitler was concerned.

That’s my perception, albeit one that might not bear the scrutiny of people more informed than I am.

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
11/22/2023 7:32:18 AM
Guys,

11-21, a couple events,

1806 Napoleon tries to blockade Great Britain! The Continental System!? Say what?? How effective could this possibly be?? Anyone??

2002 NATO expands with 7 more x Soviet countries! Why didn't Ukraine join? Are they members now?? Will they survive Russian invasion? What say you??

& today in world history, 11-22's happenings! Old & New, comments & posts welcome!

1718, the pirate Black Beard was killed off the Coast of North Carolina! Anyone have the story??

1963 sadly in Dallas, Tx. President John F Kennedy is killed! was his security lacking? What say you?? Also it seems people remember where they were & it's effects on those around them? I was in Elementary school, & A lot of kids were crying! Anyone else wish to share??

1990 Margaret Thatcher resigns after her popularity diminished! She was the leader during the victorious Falklands War, so how did this happen? Anyone??

2005 Angela Merkel becomes Germany's 1st women Chancellor! How did she do? was she a good leader? Comments?

Other events, that we missed?? Anyone?

Regards,
MD

BTW, continue your discussion on Napoleon, & the British...

Also big " run to the store day, for last minute, Thanksgiving dinner items"! What did you forget?
Happy early Turkey Day!!! Better go early it's crazy out there!
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
11/22/2023 7:57:44 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Napoleon attempted to destroy the British economy. He wanted to prevent Britain from trading with other countries in Europe and he put pressure on other countries to ensure that they would not trade with Britain. That includes Russia. So did Britain have any other option but to fight?

Just how close was Napoleon to invading Britain? Was it even feasible? Had he assembled ships for an amphibious landing? I really don't know that much about Napoleon's strategies. I do know that France lost its navy at Trafalgar.

"England expects that every man will do his duty". Horatio Nelson

Cheers,

George



EDIT: Another question. With the defeat of the French navy at Trafalgar in 1905, how did Napoleon intend to enforce the blockade of Great Britain to limit Britain's access to the continent?


George,

This is a controversial thing to say, and I’m out of my depth when it comes to necessary knowledge, but I can’t escape the conviction that Britain was more imperilled by Napoleon in the early nineteenth century than she was to be by Hitler in 1940.

Napoleon saw Britain as his principal foe, and Russia as a nuisance that had to be dealt with in order to settle accounts with the “ Nation of shopkeepers “.

It was the other way round as far as Hitler was concerned.

That’s my perception, albeit one that might not bear the scrutiny of people more informed than I am.

Regards, Phil


Hi George, Dave and Phil,

It was ultimately a numbers game, as it was in 1940. The Royal Navy had x number of ships of the line. No other individual navy could match these numbers, especially after Trafalgar. However, Napoleon hedged on the various nations of Europe under his domain offering up their ships of the line to cobble together a naval force that could at least force a crossing of the English Channel. Britain's small professional army generally performed well in this period, but would have not been able to withstand the onslaught of Napoleon's elite units, which were in their prime prior to the invasion of Russia in 1812, if they had landed in the UK.

Britain's policy therefore was to prevent Napoleon getting his hands on enough ships of the line to force a crossing and to keep their overwhelming advantage in numbers over the French fleet. This policy involved effectively stealing high quality ships of other nations and providing financial support to keep smaller nations, such as Sweden and Denmark, in the fight (or at least prevent them from siding with Napoleon). Add to this the pressure of the War of 1812, which stole away precious British army and Royal Navy resources which otherwise could have been employed in Europe. That Britain was able to be a consistent and active participant in a series of wars that saw nations drop in and out of the fight is nothing short of remarkable. Whilst it was Austrian, Prussian and Russian bodies which stopped the French columns, it was the deep reserves of British money and ships that provided the catalyst for victory. There's something familiar about that.

Cheers,

Colin
----------------------------------
"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."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
11/22/2023 8:33:08 AM
Thanks for that post, Colin.

What were the mechanics of the blockade that Napoleon tried to impose after Trafalgar? Were there French ships at sea near British ports or were Napoleon's agents seizing British ships as they tried to land in European ports? How did Britain break the blockade?

A lot of questions I know, but this is a period of history that I know little about.

Cheers,

George
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
11/22/2023 8:45:43 AM
Hi George,

The blockade generally took place away from British waters, as the French fleet couldn't stand up to the RN's powerful ships of the line. Instead, the French employed privateers to raid British maritime commerce overseas. This required the RN to build new types of ships, known as 'Bermudas', to pursue the lighter French privateers, as the available existing RN ships were generally designed for line combat.

The RN changed tactics, much in the way its ancestors had done during the wars with Spain and the Dutch generations before. The Royal Navy retained its heavy force, but started to employ more mobile craft able to operate from small overseas ports, on the high seas and on the Great Lakes to counter their nimble opponents.

I don't quite agree with Phil that Britain was more imperiled in the Napoleonic Wars than during the world wars; Britain was still able to largely feed itself at this point as the population was much lower, so the blockade was unlikely to cause much harm in the way of shortages of essentials. During the world wars, were ran dangerously low on foodstuffs like wheat flour on a few occasions due to the submarine presence. In the Napoleonic era, the Royal Navy was able to transport army units and drafts with impunity.

Cheers,

Colin
----------------------------------
"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."
Page 99 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