Reputation
1,102
Top tag
Next privilege 1,250 Rep.
Create tag synonyms
Badges
6 10
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~31k people reached

Apr
11
comment Why were people from the Asian Steppes able to militarily dominate Europeans on a repeated basis?
They both invaded Russia which aside from being a big portion of Asia has territory very similar to Mongolia. One of the themes of my answer was basically that highly mobile groups that evolved to live in the resource poor areas of the Asian Steppes did better when invading the comparatively resource-rich areas of eastern/central Europe than the other way around. Napoleon in particular ran into supply issues which ended up being devastating.
Mar
29
awarded  Yearling
Mar
23
awarded  Custodian
Mar
23
reviewed Approve Was Alexander the Great Greek or Macedonian?
Mar
22
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
Feel free to read all of my comments and sources, including the exact same debate you are restarting that occurred in the comments. Until you can cite a well-researched source that says otherwise you're just offering opinions. Crimea had floating batteries with armor-plating, they are similar but not the same. Even your source states that in the first paragraph: "The development of such iron-armoured batteries was a step towards the development of ironclad warships". Many engineering challenges separate these floating batteries with proper ironclads.
Sep
23
awarded  Nice Answer
Aug
11
comment Does Japan have the legal right to have its own army or navy?
@MarkC.Wallace In a legal sense you are absolutely right, the foundation of the treaty rests atop the constitution. In a practical sense a treaty can have more force than a constitution if there is a strong external motivator. Eg: Interwar Germany obeyed the limitations from the Treaty of Versailles (for a while) because of the credible threat of external punishment even though the government internally was in constant flux.
Mar
29
awarded  Yearling
Mar
25
comment What capabilities did Southern soldiers in the American Civil War have to get news about the North?
You might want to add that despite the official ban on communication, and the use of official communication channels that you discussed, news could still spread by word of mouth almost identically to how it had spread before. The borders were very porous in regards to the average civilian.
Mar
22
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
"The 9,000 miles of rail in the United States by 1850 led the world, but paled in comparison with the 21,000 additional miles laid during the next decade, which gave to the United States in 1860 a larger rail network than in the rest of the world combined." -- Obviously the size of the country helps here, although remember that the US was largely the E. Coast at this stage. The only countries that could compete with this potentially are England and Germany. Either way it's irrelevant to the question, all that matters is that the US had a dense system of rail, not that it was the most dense.
Mar
22
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
And the railroad density in the US was probably much higher than you suspect, I was pretty surprised when I read those numbers the first time, it was not what I had always assumed. I will try and find the numbers later. Regardless the question is what lessons came out of the Civil War, lessons are learned in combat and the Civil War was the first combat use for many of these technologies. The British invented the tank, but that does not mean they get the credit for the Blitzkrieg. America invented aircraft, but it was the French and the British that first used them as weapons.
Mar
22
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
Hand crafted interchangeable parts are not interchangeable to the level you seem to think they are. The French system was more about standardization and not interchangeability. The British had two Ironclads, which were experimental, the French had four. Neither of those count as a "full class" in my opinion but it's also irrelevant to the question. I never argued that the US invented ironclads, but it is an objective fact that the first large scale use of ironclads in combat was the Civil War. I included a quote from a contemporary British source as evidence of that.
Mar
22
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
You are free to disagree but until you start producing sources your arguments are just your impression of history with no evidence that they are in fact based on facts. Also, please read the answer fully, you keep bringing up points that I do not make.
Mar
22
awarded  Necromancer
Mar
22
revised Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
Edited Conclusion
Mar
22
revised Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
Added direct references, a conclusion and emphasis
Mar
22
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
As for the rest I will add direct supporting quotes. In general though I never argued that the American experience was unique, it was not. But it's beyond argument that the Civil War was the first wartime situation to see many of these things used en masse. I'm aware the Prussians had rifles, but what matters is the lessons learned from employing them, lessons they would not gain until later. Machine guns were used in the Boer War, that doesn't mean WWI is not what made them significant. It's little more than an accident of timing, but that does not negate its significance.
Mar
22
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
Despite the superficial similarities it is a fairly different approach, it is an American invention, and it was not used in Europe before being introduced by American arms companies. In England it is literally called "The American System of Manufactures" Wikipedia
Mar
22
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
In this case we're talking about two different versions of interchangeable parts. What you're describing is the broad sense of designing things modularly so that parts can be changed, but because each component is made by hand it's typically impossible to take a part from, for example, one rifle and move it to another and have it work without filing/modifying it to fit. The American system uses machines purpose built to create each part so that they are, in effect, identical and are truly interchangeable.
Mar
21
answered Napoleon's exploits in 1785