Eyewitness to History

[Premezilla]

Just trying to "lighten up" the topic here....

1)Those guys at Blizzard who orignially came up with the concept for Diablo, not knowing what kind of following they would garner

2)Thomas Crapper (is that right?) invent the toilet

3)Being there when the "on" switch for the internet was flipped

4)Witness the person who killed the LAST dodo bird so I could say "Dude, you killed the dodo's!"

But seriously, there's so many great moments in history, it be hard to choose one. Invariably, I'd have to go with the Resurrection, but being there when the first Cro-magnon man made fire would be pretty neat also. Or, maybe when they made the wheel....or, maybe when Custer had his last stand....I dunno, all of them are important to history....it's just hard to choose.

Tal, I commend you on this topic. It's a real brain-buster! :)

[Ace 777]

2)Thomas Crapper (is that right?) invent the toilet

I thought is was John Crapper.
I may be wrong though.

B)

[keenduck]

Ultimately, the absence of a single super-power would probably have resulted in a much stronger global alliance, possibly able to dissuade the wars of the 20th century.

Did you mean the other way around? It was the absence of a single super-power that lead to the wars of the 20th century (the World Wars, Cold War's hot wars). In the case of Europe, the multipolar atmosphere led to alliance blocks. The Cold War obviously resulted from two super-powers duking it out, via proxy.

On the other hand, historically, a single polar world did lead to the rest ganging up on the super power.

[channel1]

...Did you mean the other way around? It was the absence of a single super-power...

Germany was essentially a "super-power", able to tromp any of their neighbors individually. The populace was extremely nationalistic, believing it was their destiny to be the center of an Aryan empire.

If there had been an established, co-operative military alliance in Europe in the 30s (a-la NATO), it is unlikely that they would have even tried expansion by military force. Of course, by the end of the 20th century they have began to succeed by economic force where they failed by military force.

Of course, the problems in making run of the mill decisions in a multi-national organization are considerable. More time can be spent in arguments, than in action. The result is often a lack of action, or the decision to hold off on making a decision. That is preferable to going off and killing people for no good reason.

-rcv-

[Haider]

Germany was essentially a "super-power", able to tromp any of their neighbors individually. The populace was extremely nationalistic, believing it was their destiny to be the center of an Aryan empire.


Before 1934 this was never more than the thoughts of some weirdos. After this weirdos got the power this theories still were not widespread and far from common belief.

[kandrathe]

Oops. Yeah, Columbia was what I was thinking... Speaking of Spaniards, it would have been also fun to have tipped off Montezuma as to the ultimate aims of those mysterious visitors. It might not have changed much, other than made it more difficult for the Spanish for awhile.

[Yrrek]

Along that same vein, Easter Island, that would be very interesting to see the creaters, and how they did that.

[Feryar]

The sinking of the german warship Blücher in the fjord of Oslo on the 9th of April 1940.

Blücher was approaching Oslo with the intention of capturing the norwegian royal family.
The ship was spotted at the Fortress of Oscarsborg, and 0519 they opened fire against the ship, and at 0742 it went down.

That alarmed the norwegian armed forces of the coming invasion, and enabled them to rush the king out of Oslo and move him north.
They were followed by wehrmacht, but laid in ambush at a small town called Elverum and managed to hold the germans back. Three cities were bombed while the king passed through them untill he could escape to England and organize the resistance.

[Occhidiangela]

Had the Brits not had the French to deal with, I'd venture to say those first frigates would have ended up as pre packaged shark food containters had the RN chosed to eliminate the American Navy.

I'd guess that such an aim was not necessarily in their strategic interest, but that will have to be a "what if" for all time thanks to Bonaparte, et al.

As to Maritime Dominance: Limited in time and place, for certain, but, and this is a big butt,

The tools of Sea Denial in defensive maritime war, aircraft, mines and submarines, can contest Maritime Dominance. I'd say that lately no one has put it to the test for strategic, not tactical, reasons.

(PS: ASW is hard.)

[Occhidiangela]

In the rating of a ship. With comparable ships, even if the Dutch and French had a small qualitative edge, the gunnery, doctrine, training and quality of the Ships' companies had a great deal to do with their effectiveness.

It did not help that Bonaparte was known to now and again raid the Royal Navy for artillerists.

EDIT: Oops, let's try that again.

It did not help that Bonaparte was known to now and again raid the French Navy for artillerists for his armies.

[--Pete]

Hi,

A major factor contributing to the inferiority of the French navy of this period was a result of "buying commissions". The British still sold commissions in the Army at this time (and for some time following) but had long since stopped doing so in their Navy. The French Navy, OTOH, still sold commissions till just before the revolution.

Of course, to buy a commission, one had to have money, and in pre-revolutionary France that usually meant aristocracy. As is well known, a large percentage of the aristocracy lost their heads during the reign. This included a large percentage of the naval officers. So, when old Boney took power, he inherited a navy with most of its sailing capabilities intact. The "sailing masters" who actually were in charge of the handling of the ship were mostly from the common people and had earned their position through experience and merit. But what he did not inherit was a chain of command and people experienced in leadership of fleets and navies.

Combined the lack of leadership with the fact that France had never been much of a naval power in spite of long coastlines on the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. and the comment that "Napoleon's power ended where salt water reached his cavalry's stirrups" is seen to be all too true.

It did not help that Bonaparte was known to now and again raid the French Navy for artillerists for his armies.

Ah, but which is the horse and which the carriage. Did Napoleon ruin his navy by stripping it of gunners, or did he strip the gunners from a useless navy to put them where they would do some good? :)

It's always fun to discuss the failures and successes of the Little Corporal. Many think that his failure to understand and embrace sea power contributed as much to his downfall as did the march back from Moscow. But he never saw navies as anything more than a way to move his army.

--Pete

[Rhydderch Hael]

Another trick for our side. American gun and powder manufacture of the time was inferior to that of the British. The solution to that problem? Use bigger guns, and drill your gunners incessantly in marksmanship. The Brits were told to conserve shots and powder, while the Americans popped away happily until they got good at it.

[Occhidiangela]

In the Imperial Army, positions were open to talent: they had to be.

"In every Corporal's pack is a Field Marshall's baton." (Close, might not be perfect.)

Typical general, dear Nappy: no clue as to Naval things, and what is now called "Joint Operations."

(I imagine some have a funnier, if sad, slant on what a "joint" operation is, eh?)

Agree with you on the Gunner decision: with constrained resources, you have to make hard choices.

Some stuff never changes.

[--Pete]

Hi,

American gun and powder manufacture of the time was inferior to that of the British.

Interesting. I am hard pressed to understand why this should be so. The British guns of the time were not much of anything special, just cast iron tubes bored to take round shot, no rifling, loose fit that got looser as the corrosive residue of burned black powder ate them away. In the same manner, I don't understand why American powder would be in any way inferior to British. Black powder is not a compound, simply a mixture. The purity and fineness of the powder of the ingredients and how well they are mixed determines most of the quality of the powder. Things like the size of the grain determined the burning qualities. All this was well known since black powder had been in use in Europe for about half a millennium.

DuPont had been making powder in the US since 1802 (IIRC), were one of the suppliers to the Navy, and were producing one of the best, if not the best, black powder products of the time -- as good as the French and much better than the British. Or, at least, that is what I got out of a history channel presentation :)

My understanding was that the British were primarily concerned with fleet actions. In spite of Nelson's example at Trafalgar, these were still broadside duels at close range. Aim was of little matter, you could hardly miss a ship at ten yards. Rapidity of fire and steadiness in combat were what mattered, so the British navy of the time did little to practice long range shooting. The fact was that England was deeply involved in a European war and could scarcely afford to use much of its limited supply of powder for gunnery practice. Where were they to turn to buy more? Germany in French hands? Ask the French? Go to their former colonies? Actually, England did buy a fair quantity of powder from the US except during the 1812 -1814 period.

The Americans, OTOH, had a naval doctrine that could summed up as "Outrun what you can't outfight, outfight what you can't outrun." That meant fighting ship to ship duels where both mobility and accuracy at range could be advantageous. And that meant long range gunnery mattered to them.

I remember hearing that the gunners on the American frigates would file smooth the seams and rough spots of the cannon balls so that they would fly more true.

I suspect that more than the equipment, the training in each navy had the greatest effect. Each side became proficient in what they considered important and practiced. Not too unusual a concept :)

--Pete

[channel1]

...The populace was extremely nationalistic...
...Before 1934 this was never more than the thoughts of some weirdos...

Hardly. The majority of Europeans during the age of empire were typically nationalistic. By the end of the 19th century the nations in Europe that still had significant power to back up their nationalism was down to Germany (Prussia) and Britain. A few others could arguably be added to that list, but they were nations that had pretty much ceased their imperial expansion.

My use of the term "Aryan" was in the traditional sense, that is
"...people supposed to have lived in prehistoric times, in Central Asia, east of the Caspian Sea, and north of the Hindoo Koosh and Paropamisan Mountains, and to have been the stock from which sprang the Hindu, Persian, Greek, Latin, Celtic, Teutonic, Slavonic, and other races; one of that ethnological division of mankind called also Indo-European or Indo-Germanic." (source: http://dict.die.net/aryan/ )

The concept of an inherent superiority of the typical European people, especially over the natives of the Americas, Africa and Asia, was very a commonly held belief, and some twits -er- people believe it even today. Other nations have parallel beliefs, for example, when it was determined by genetic comparison that the Japanese had descended from the Koreans, there was absolute denial by many in Japan.

-rcv-

[[wcip]Angel]

Did you mean the other way around? It was the absence of a single super-power that lead to the wars of the 20th century (the World Wars, Cold War's hot wars). In the case of Europe, the multipolar atmosphere led to alliance blocks. The Cold War obviously resulted from two super-powers duking it out, via proxy.

On the other hand, historically, a single polar world did lead to the rest ganging up on the super power.

I thought it was the ancient greek who invented the toilet. I went to Knossos on Crete and that's what they told me. We also got to see the first drainage system, which was pretty neat.

[Bob]

argh! I wrote an entire post, and deactivating popup-blocker on the google toolbar wiped it. the general gist:

When, in the War of 1812, the Royal Navy issued the order prohibiting British commanders from engaging American warships if first unable to attain a 2:1 numerical superiority, that made American naval architecture, gunnery philosophy, and command style a significant factor to contend against in all future engagements.

not necasserily through fear of the USN

from what I've just read (a 3 page piece on the war, so correct me if this is wrong) most of the naval war was fought on the American side of the Atlantic.

(if that was wrong disregard these next few lines)

When you're a weeks sail from Britain, you just can't afford to be taking losses all over the place as the 2 week delay in getting reinforcements would hurt.

assuming that each navy is equally capable, 10v10, 5 losses each (say), 20v10 few losses on the side with 20, probable obliteration for the side with 10.

When it's that important to take few losses, sometimes playing cautiously and only taking on vastly inferior numbers is the way to go.



rough quote from someone else:
"before WW1 the RN was more powerful than the next 2 biggest nations combined"

not quite correct. Had to be bigger (usually meant more powerful, but not the same)



on to my historical events:

if i could change a minor thing - I'd probably stop myself breaking my watch a few years ago
major thing - chop the apple tree down in the garden of eden - no apple tree, no apples

just watching:
you know... this is harder than i thought it would be

Napoleon getting beaten for the last time
following Lord Lucan around - see what happened to him
Battle of trafalgar
Martin niemoller making is famous quote - just to find out exactly what he said
A trip around the seven wonders when they were new
the day the lounge first went online :P

-Bob

[Doc]

Well my memory has gotten fuzzy with age, and I read all this a long time ago, but the early US Navy, while a little small, really was a fearsome entity. So much so infact, that most British ships had orders to never engage US ships one on one. Something to the effect or 2 or 3 on one, more if possible.

America had highly accurate and powerful cannons. As Pete mentioned, cannonballs were filed and then polished to be as smooth as a baby's behind. What we really had going for us was reputation. A certain amount of bluff factor, and that the US Naval Officers were crazy as loons, especially after that whole Barbary event where some captain set his own ship on fire and then used it as a giant flaming battering ram to assault a blockade and then rammed it into the harbour, setting most of the city on fire. Once word spreads of that sort of insanity, well, folk have a little bit of fear on what you might or might not do.

Also, as I recall reading, America did not play by the "Rules." Warning and Courtesy shorts were largely ignored, with Americans paying no attention to Naval Etiquette. They did not recognize the RN as being the "embodiment" and "presense" of the nobles, and therefore, did not treat them as one might treat a noble. America had this whole "Manifest Destiny" thing going on, all men as equals. I wish I could remember the name of the book, but there was a really interesting book about early America and how the world viewed us, and about our early views, like trying to stay out of European politics and such. Even back then, Americans were viewed as uncivilized uncultured brutes, and, horror of horrors, they had a navy, which had always been a gentleman's arena.

[Haider]

There simply was no belief of a "aryan empire" in Germany. How should it? Nobody saw "Germany" as a nation. It existed only for a short time. They identified with their small former kingdoms (Prussia, Saxon, Bavaria..., like many still do) - a Bavarian would never accept that he is from the same "race" as a Prussian ;)

The only identifaction the Germans had was the Emperor and the hate for the French.
WWI and the following hardships were the things which made Germany to a nation (divided by class conflicts)
Only Hitler and his "aryan" friends brought this belief to a bigger audience.

Sure there was a lot of nationalsim - not unlike today USA.

[Occhidiangela]

For that matter, you might want to consider the Holy Roman Empire, but we won't go that far back.

Bismarck's aim was to take a lot of little states and put them into one big state under the rule of his Prussian King and then Emperor, (Koenig and Kaiser) Wilhelm. In the successive wars of conquest in 1864, 1866, and 1871, he unified what had been called Germany into one whole for the first time since, well, the Holy Roman Empire. :)

Now, did the folks in Hesse consider themselves Bavarians? Did the Wurtemburgers consider themselves Schwabians or Westphalians?

No, and they still don't.

What Bismarck was able to do during the industrial age, however, was to appeal to a number of common cultural assumptions, some of which were direct products of the enlightenment and the brilliant German philosophers of the 18th century, to create a nation called Germany. Like the creation of the Third Republic of France, it was an act of political will. It was not Prussia but Germany (albeit with significant Junkers and Prussian influence) who got into WW I alongside Austria: that Germanic Axis, culturally and linguistically inter related for centuries, can trace its roots back to . . . oh crap, there I go again, the Holy Roman Empire.

Now, you may be right in that the existence of the French, and the legacy of Napoleon's having turned the world upside down when he spread the Revolution to Germany, added a negative emotion to the "why we are in this together" bit. But it is incorrect to assert that Germany was not born until 1934.

Otto had a plan, and it more or less worked.