750 reputation
26
bio website
location
age
visits member for 1 year, 4 months
seen Jul 3 at 20:02

May
7
comment What were Rommel's views on the Nazi crimes?
Please take the time to review your sources and construct an answer rather than simply posting links. While the second source is interesting it doesn't apply to the question asked, it's just describing how Hitler might have exploited Rommel's victories to expand the Holocaust, not how Rommel himself felt about it.
May
7
awarded  Critic
May
7
comment What were Rommel's views on the Nazi crimes?
@cept0 - Could you be a bit more constructive?
May
7
comment How did the First French Empire and allies differ from the other European monarchies at that time?
@TED is right, though the answer is not inaccurate. All those people identified as German, though they existed as independent states. So change "Germany" to "the German States" and the answer still works.
May
7
comment What was involved in “grounding arms?”
Not sure on the answer to this one but I would assume that throwing down weapons was much more common during the gunpowder era. The short range and low rate of fire for smoothbore muskets meant that if the enemy threw down their weapons you could see it, react to it, and you weren't risking them picking them up and using them again, because most wouldn't be loaded. I agree with Nathan, though, that they probably used multiple forms of surrender at the same time, and it would be highly situational.
May
7
revised What were Rommel's views on the Nazi crimes?
Added sources
May
6
answered What were Rommel's views on the Nazi crimes?
May
4
comment Why were people from the Asian Steppes able to militarily dominate Europeans on a repeated basis?
@dwstein, I would agree that situations like that are exceptional, however Genghis Khan and Attila were exceptions as well. The topic is excellent, I've enjoyed the debate, I think the issue is that there was never really a period of repeated military domination by either side. The early Mongol invasions were highly destructive, but the later invasions were repelled at great cost to the Mongols themselves. I'd highly recommend reading the link I added to the bottom to my answer, because it goes into a lot of the details.
May
2
revised Why were people from the Asian Steppes able to militarily dominate Europeans on a repeated basis?
Added Quora link
May
2
comment Why were people from the Asian Steppes able to militarily dominate Europeans on a repeated basis?
How about Rome or Alexander? The Romans pretty well matched what the Mongols did in terms of scope. They also accomplished that on both land and sea and held the territory for centuries. In the context of the original question, though, it doesn't matter. The question is about military domination on a repeated basis, not who was the "best." Also remember that in the context of Asia vs. Europe the Mongols didn't have much success, they reached Vienna, the Khan died, and they turned around and never came back. Comparing successes depends a lot on the context in which you define success.
May
2
awarded  Commentator
May
2
comment What is the motivation of having heavy infantry to the right and light infantry to the left flank?
Generally speaking, large set-piece battles are a battle for the flanks, so placing your best troops there is good practice. Having said that, tactics varied for each battle, if you read through the battle reports of the time they involve a lot of throwing units into the fray and onto the line as they arrived and adapting to the situation as it evolved. A deployment that rigid wasn't always possible.
May
1
comment Could the Confederates have done better at Gettysburg if they had put cavalry in front of, rather than behind, Pickett's charge?
Interesting. The sources I've found (Wikipedia, The Battle Cry of Freedom) all mention Pickett's men coming under heavy artillery and rifle fire while making the charge, so the misfiring problem wasn't enough to silence the Union rifles. The cavalry would still be exposed to artillery fire the entire way across the field. Not to mention, by using the cavalry thusly Lee would have sacrificed his ability to properly exploit the charge. Try as I might, I still can't come up with a situation where cavalry first would have won Lee the battle.
May
1
comment Why were people from the Asian Steppes able to militarily dominate Europeans on a repeated basis?
The question itself contains errors. The Teutonic Knights were pushing East. The Slavs were generally coming from Asia and not into it. I didn't want to simply criticize the question so I was trying to reframe it, but the first paragraph got ranty. Also, the second paragraph refers to the Asian Steppes and not Asia whole, which I should have clarified. Obviously India, China, etc. are excellent and wealthy territories. My point was that the areas the Europeans could have invaded (eg. Mongolian Steppe) were not as attractive as just taking more land in Europe.
May
1
awarded  Editor
May
1
revised Why were people from the Asian Steppes able to militarily dominate Europeans on a repeated basis?
Focused the first paragraph and explicitly mentioned the (Eur)Asian Steppes rather than simply saying "Asia"
May
1
comment Were cavalry used in first World War?
Not worth adding another answer for this, but the two main reasons cavalry wasn't used as much despite most of the armies still having a cavalry branch was 1) Highly vulnerable to long range rifles and artillery. For this reason, they were kept so far behind the lines they could rarely get to the front in time to make a difference, and 2) Horses had trouble navigating the countless shell holes at the front without breaking their legs.
May
1
comment Machine gun specs in WW1
If you're analyzing weaponry in WWI you should look at artillery in well. Artillery was, by far, the deadliest weapon of the war, killing more people than all other weapons combined.
May
1
comment Why didn’t Britain use its vast navy to get past trench warfare?
It actually wasn't "By far" the largest. It was objectively bigger than the German High Seas fleet, yes, but the main cause of animosity between the British and Germans at the time was the fact that the German navy was large enough to be a genuine threat to the Royal Navy.
May
1
answered Could the Confederates have done better at Gettysburg if they had put cavalry in front of, rather than behind, Pickett's charge?