780 reputation
37
bio website
location
age
visits member for 1 year, 9 months
seen Sep 1 at 18:18

May
20
comment Was Christianity the first belief system which encouraged the ideal of peace among all people on Earth?
@RichardTingle The key here is looking at religions as historical movements and Christianity is undoubtedly Christ worship. Yes the Bible includes the Old Testament, but looking at Christians as a group they are far more concerned with the preachings of Jesus. While the wording of the original question seems improperly biased in favor of Christianity, cherry picking a quote about violence from a set of teachings that Christians are decidedly ambivalent about seems improperly biased against it.
Feb
6
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
@PieterGeerkens Please read my comments and relate them back to your answer. The point of the comments section is to improve your answer or raise criticism. What purpose is there for me to reiterate what you said, particularly if I don't think it properly answers the question? The short version: The question asks for things that were invented during the Civil War and influenced warfare afterwards, and you listed three things that were all invented and implemented decades earlier, not during the Civil War. They are interesting points, but they don't answer the original question.
Feb
6
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
@PieterGeerkens The first point I agree with, cover was more important in the Civil War. However, taking cover was still common practice in the armies of Revolutionary France, so it wasn't an entirely new idea, and there are good reasons to not take cover: loading is faster, discipline is easier, denser formations are safer against cavalry, and cover helps less against hundreds of inaccurate muskets firing less than 80 yards away. The reason cover became significant is because the weapons and the battlefield changed to make it more advantageous, and your answer didn't quite explain that.
Feb
6
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
@PieterGeerkens Your points are correct, but the original question was asking about things that were invented during the Civil War that influenced warfare after it. Mass conscription was not. Cavalry used as scouting and pursuit was the norm before the Civil War, though the Civil War certainly contributed to the death of whatever shock cavalry was left so I partially agree on that.
Feb
5
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
The points you make are good, the dates however are wrong. All three of your major innovations were used first and used extensively by the armies of revolutionary France. The French used huge clouds of skirmishers, it's a defining feature of their armies, and skirmishing tactics were known before even that, not to mention there are valid reasons not to take cover, which is why the alternative existed. Most cavalry was used as recon, shock cavalry in the age of gunpowder was typically the exception. Finally, mass conscription, also known as Leveé en masse, originated in Revolutionary France.
Feb
5
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
For this to be complete you'd need to include railroads, the most important long-term impact of the Civil War by far. The technological changes were certainly significant, but most battles are won and lost by supply and maneuver, and railroads completely revolutionized both.
Dec
5
comment (War Guilt Methodology) Was Germany solely to blame for WWI?
You are correct in your assertions, but you're missing a lot of mitigating factors that are crucial to the understanding of the whole event. France had been giving Russia money and military support specifically to deal with Germany at some point in the future, and the French were just looking for an excuse to go to war. The Tsar promised mobilization only in the regions next to Austria-Hungary, but in reality mobilized the entire Russian army. It's a complex issue and there are other factors, but against that backdrop I can't agree with the assertion that Germany is the "most guilty" party.
Dec
5
comment Has there ever been a truly multi-sided war?
The answers below fit the question better, but I thought I'd mention the Holy Roman Empire, or the ancient Greek City States. Both are good examples of numerous factions that were perpetually fighting each other, however those involve a lot more shifting alliances and attacks of opportunity rather than a persistent state of war.
Dec
5
comment How do war elephants fight?
@Sardathrion Cavalry can be point and charge but it's also capable of flanking, baiting, skirmishing, withdrawing, and a host of other complicated maneuvers. Cavalry was also a common element in most armies, war elephants were always a novelty, that was part of their power. The answer is pretty solid but given that "War Elephants == Big Cavalry" is an extremely common misconception I think more emphasis needs to be put on their unique role and varying utilization rather than conflating them with cavalry.
Dec
5
comment How do war elephants fight?
Because Elephants were much harder to control, they really weren't used "as cavalry would have been". They're more of a blunt instrument, point them at a target of opportunity and charge, once the chaos of battle got to them they'd be impossible to control, unlike horses.
Aug
27
comment What role did War elephants play in the battle of Thermopylae?
Fascinating, I'd never heard of that battle before. Based on the battle account, however, it sounds like the elephants were deployed at a wider part of the pass, and not used in the actual fighting.
Aug
23
comment Why did the Germans wait until it was too late to reinstate their unrestricted submarine warfare in WWI?
Starving out the enemy wasn't a practical strategy for Germany at that stage. France and America couldn't be beaten that way, and England had Germany under a full blockade for the entire war. If it came down to that, Germany would starve first. Indeed, over 400K deaths were attributed directly to the blockade, deaths that starvation/malnutrition and the blockade indirectly contributed to were probably twice that. Germany's only hope at that stage was a military victory that would give them a better bargaining position in peace talks.
May
21
comment U.S. Marine Corps and Why does the Navy’s army need its own air force?
@Drux The Marines are the oldest branch, however it has shrunk and nearly disappeared at several points. The history of the Corps is one of significant reinvention, continually evolving their capabilities to fit a role no other branch does. The modern version is focused on speed and flexibility that makes them the best suited for fighting the asymmetric wars the US has been facing recently. (Also, as to the F-35, this isn't the first time a 'one plane' solution has been tried and it always fails expensively because it's really not a good idea at its core)
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
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
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
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
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.