captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Well, I like it, Especially sans pit (for those who do not get this reference, be happy).
French Military Success
- Thread starter atpollard
- Start date
- Status
I'm a member of both boards and find I like them both. This cross-forum Traveller rivalry has always seemed so silly to me. We're obviously all Traveller fans.
Back on Topic:
Anyone with a snippet of military knowledge knows France has a deep fighting history that can't be denied.
That being said, I think the present remarks and viewpoints come from more modern history, WWII to the present. For example, I could have easily been biased if I had only listened to stories from my grandfather, (WWII glider trooper, ranger trained, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, William Hisle mentioned in my signature) who seemed to have more respect for the German enemy then the French.
Back on Topic:
Anyone with a snippet of military knowledge knows France has a deep fighting history that can't be denied.
That being said, I think the present remarks and viewpoints come from more modern history, WWII to the present. For example, I could have easily been biased if I had only listened to stories from my grandfather, (WWII glider trooper, ranger trained, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, William Hisle mentioned in my signature) who seemed to have more respect for the German enemy then the French.
snrdg121408
Mongoose
Evening all,
My basic idea of military success is the entity's forces that are still around after the fighting is over. The side whose military disappears from history is unsuccessful.
Traveller is like a family everyone has a favorite with the rivalry that goes with the territory. However, have an outsider bash one of the family members stand by for the dog pile as everyone comes together.
I haven't been over to the CotI forum for a while has there been a shift to something like the flame wars that occassionally occur on the TML?
Well, anyway that was my 2 credits worth.
My basic idea of military success is the entity's forces that are still around after the fighting is over. The side whose military disappears from history is unsuccessful.
Traveller is like a family everyone has a favorite with the rivalry that goes with the territory. However, have an outsider bash one of the family members stand by for the dog pile as everyone comes together.
I haven't been over to the CotI forum for a while has there been a shift to something like the flame wars that occassionally occur on the TML?
Well, anyway that was my 2 credits worth.
WWII was possibly the all time high of the German military, and one could argue it was the all time low of the French military (even though they did have their moments).Sturn said:
And if you consider the time since WWII, France has had a decent military experience, some better moments and some less better, much like the US in fact, no? So I would say the present remarks in question are not realy based on modern history, but essentially only WWII, and more specifically the first couple of months against germany, no? I could be very wrong, I'm no military expert.
Yes, I agree.zanwot said:
Besides, at this stage of the war Germany had a significant technolo-
gical advantage over France and could field a high number of weapon
systems against which the French military had hardly any efficient coun-
termeasures. With equal equipment on both sides, history would most
probably have taken a different turn.
And while talking about history, this situation was a kind of anomaly,
because for most of our common history France had the more advan-
ced technology and the better equipped military. This only changed for
a rather short period in the 19th and 20th century.
rust said:
Well, yes and no. There is some argument that the French had better, for example, armour than Germany in the first stages of the war. Where Germany scored very highly was in organisation, and the combination of armour (massed, not in packets), infantry and air power (Blitzkrieg, basically).
Indeed, the best French equipment was at least as good as the Germanmsprange said:
one (some of their aircraft were much better than everything Germany
had at the time), but France had only just developed it and only just be-
gun to introduce it, it was not yet available in significant numbers.
Germany, on the other hand, had a head start of a couple of years, and
the modern equipment was already available in numbers, the troops had
trained its use, and a kind of "combined arms" strategy for the new wea-
pons had been designed, tested (Poland) and improved.
At least this is the version of the story I know, but I am well aware that
there is an ongoing discussion about this.
As a side note, much of the German armour technology had its roots not
in Germany, but was the result of Czech research and development obtai-
ned during Hitler's first conquest a couple of years earlier.
snrdg121408
Mongoose
Sturn said:
Morning Sturn,
Good, guess I'll start having to make the rounds of the forums again.
Also thank you for the AutoRealm guide, good stuff.
At the time of the Hundred years war, Wales was firmly within the English nation having been conquered by Edward I (half-French) in 1284 (Treaty of Rhuddlan). The longbow had been recognised as a superior weapon to the crossbow and adopted soon after the end of the Welsh wars. Hence, it can easily be said that the longbows of Crecy (1346) and Agincourt (1415) were fired by Englishmen. Edward I is reputed to have instituted a regimen of archery practise on Sundays after attendance at church.Gaidheal said:
Another Swabian?! The ex was Swabian too, funnily enough, LOL.
Anyway, I do endlessly steal the Michael out of the Welsh, especially my best friend but for all that I might say this, Wales isn't and never has been part of England and it takes decades to get a level of expertise suitable for battlefield use with a longbow (leads to distortion of the spine, too) also it's actually recorded that the longbowmen were Welsh.
They were "English" in the sense that they were fighting in the English army, nothing more (there were Scots in the French army, too, by the way).
Anyway, I do endlessly steal the Michael out of the Welsh, especially my best friend but for all that I might say this, Wales isn't and never has been part of England and it takes decades to get a level of expertise suitable for battlefield use with a longbow (leads to distortion of the spine, too) also it's actually recorded that the longbowmen were Welsh.
They were "English" in the sense that they were fighting in the English army, nothing more (there were Scots in the French army, too, by the way).
Dave Chase
Mongoose
Sturn said:
No, there are no 'flame wars'.
And there is not a rivarly between this forum and that forum.
There are several strong attitude issues coming from mainly Admin and a moderator, that have driven several individuals away. These are besides the ones that the owner decided to ban.
There are some issues with the owner/admin, who does not treat hired artists, designers and a few others fairly. Or pay them timely.
There are also has been issues with the owner not keeping his promises/word on agreements (money and other).
Along with several incidents that have caused Marc Miller to be involved over some issues.
That being said, there are some good posts there as there are on most Traveller forums. You don't have to weed through as much to find them (more than you have to here).
And some of the individuals who 'hang' out there are good people too.
Dave Chase
Well, we Swabians are of course the most advanced type of Germans ... :lol:Gaidheal said:
However, there are seven distinct types of Swabians, too, and not all of
them do like each other much. In fact, in one part of Swabia (the Allgäu)
the word "Swabian" has got a rather derogatory meaning, aimed at the
people of Württemberg (especially Stuttgart), who tend to visit the alpine
Allgäu as tourists and combine lots of money to spend with a surprising
ability to get into trouble in the mountain environment. :wink:
Klaus Kipling
Mongoose
Dave Chase said:
I'm not going to contradict you, as you have always dealt with sincerity and honour
, but my COTI forays have been reduced solely due to a single poster's personal unpleasantness, often addressed directly at me, over a significant period of time, and who hid behind false claims of moderator balance and so-called free speech. That's my take on my issues with that board.I often end up not responding to posts there as I at least try and avoid hypocrisy where I can (not always possible, I know), and it often seems to turn out that those complaining about a behaviour are the most guilty of it themselves.
btw, just to be clear, this is not a coded insinuation aimed at anyone here at all!
And back to the thread...
There was an amusing Daily Show comment off the back of a Berlusconi skit.
"Mussolini's Italy, with help from the Nazis, was able to fight Ethiopia to a draw."
captainsmirk
Mongoose
Gaidheal said:
I image that there are quite a few people who would dispute that the Welsh can lay anymore claim to the longbow than the English can...
Longbows have been used throughout the world for thousands of years indeed the oldest surviving bow was found in Somerset and is a good 5000 years old. Many Germanic peoples (including the Anglo-Saxons) used them, just not as a major weapon of war. A number of Norman archers appear on the Bayeux Tapestry.
The first English victory (at least partially) attributable to the longbow was the Battle of the Standard in 1138 over 100 years before the conquest of Wales.
The Welsh in fact should be attributed more for their skill with the bow than their development of it. The bows the Welsh used against Edward I's armies were fairly short and made of elm making them technically distinct from the English Longbow (made traditionally of yew). Edward was impressed by their tactical use and used Welsh conscripts in later conflicts whilst starting the training of large numbers of English bowmen. The armies at Crecy and Agincourt were most likely a mixture of both.
Nick
And indeed the bows that the Welsh used
Yep, but Mussolini's Italy really was the all time low of the Italian militaryKlaus Kipling said:
tradition.
Some of their units, like the Alpini and the Bersaglieri, were and are very
good troops, and for a while their special operations divers probably were
high among the world's best (one of the few foreign units the then rather
arrogant Germans asked for help with the training of their own units).
Wales has never had the same degree of autonomy in the amalgamation of Great Britain that Scotland has always had. Wales lost it's individual nationality through conquest and was included as part of the English nation. There were revolts (Owain Glyndwr) in the 15th Century, after which even Welsh law was removed (Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542). Between the 13th and 20th Century, Wales could be said not to have existed as a separate nation at all. In the Act of Union (1707) between the nations of England and Scotland, the territory of Wales is included as part of the state of England.Gaidheal said:
With the rise of Welsh nationalism in the early 20th century there has been an increase in the division of England and Wales. In 1905, Cardiff was given city status and was given status as a capital city in 1955. In the 1960s, Welsh language was given protected status. Not until 2006 was the state of Wales devolved from that of England. Even then, the devolution was not to the same extent as that of Scotland and we share the same laws and education system with Wales even now.
There were indeed some Welsh archers in the army at the time of the Hundred years war, but the majority of archers firing the longbows were English (having trained for the requisite decades). At the (much earlier) time of the Scottish wars under Edward I, the archers firing the longbows were exclusively Welsh mercenaries. As I said before, the longbow was adopted immediately after resolution of the Welsh wars in 1284.
Captain - that's a verbatim quote of Wikipedia, at least acknowledge your sources. ;¬) The later Welsh bows were not short at all and it's their proficiency and tactics I addressed, not the creation of the bow which is indeed prehistoric.
Valarian - the United Kingdom is Scotland and England and the term Great Britain once encompassed all of Ireland as well as Scotland and Wales but today is used as a synonym for UK which is used to mean, essentially, England, Wales, Scotland and Ulster (Northern Ireland) even though that's not technically correct. Wales is not nor ever has been England, for all that it long ago lost its separate legal system and only recently regained any political autonomy. I frequently point out that it was essentially annexed but it does in fact retain nominal separation (as noted in law - "England and Wales") and for all that cultural differences are nowhere near what they once were, it also retains a separate culture and sense of identity which might not rival Scotland's (we're notoriously bolshy, after all) but does exist.
Welsh nationalism never went away but political activism did indeed become more obvious in the 20th C, not least because mass media and high literacy made it practical to 'educate' the Welshman on the street about Welsh history as well as promulgate political ideologies based around an independent Welsh nation.
The accounts don't support your assertion about the nationality of the archers, as I recall, though I don't have any URLs handy, I confess. It's also worth remembering that the effective Welsh border was significantly east of Shrewsbury, pretty much encompassing Salop / Shropshire, in modern terms and once went as far north as Liverpool (a capital of a Welsk kingdom, once, believe it or not).
Welsh status and culture is greatly diminished and the modern Welsh language is essentially a reconstructed language but the Welsh aren't English, they never were English and they are increasingly (impotenty, in my opinion) conscious of their distinct history and culture. Wales doesn't start and end with Glyndwr and the famous trick of Edward's.
Valarian - the United Kingdom is Scotland and England and the term Great Britain once encompassed all of Ireland as well as Scotland and Wales but today is used as a synonym for UK which is used to mean, essentially, England, Wales, Scotland and Ulster (Northern Ireland) even though that's not technically correct. Wales is not nor ever has been England, for all that it long ago lost its separate legal system and only recently regained any political autonomy. I frequently point out that it was essentially annexed but it does in fact retain nominal separation (as noted in law - "England and Wales") and for all that cultural differences are nowhere near what they once were, it also retains a separate culture and sense of identity which might not rival Scotland's (we're notoriously bolshy, after all) but does exist.
Welsh nationalism never went away but political activism did indeed become more obvious in the 20th C, not least because mass media and high literacy made it practical to 'educate' the Welshman on the street about Welsh history as well as promulgate political ideologies based around an independent Welsh nation.
The accounts don't support your assertion about the nationality of the archers, as I recall, though I don't have any URLs handy, I confess. It's also worth remembering that the effective Welsh border was significantly east of Shrewsbury, pretty much encompassing Salop / Shropshire, in modern terms and once went as far north as Liverpool (a capital of a Welsk kingdom, once, believe it or not).
Welsh status and culture is greatly diminished and the modern Welsh language is essentially a reconstructed language but the Welsh aren't English, they never were English and they are increasingly (impotenty, in my opinion) conscious of their distinct history and culture. Wales doesn't start and end with Glyndwr and the famous trick of Edward's.
I agree that there has been a continual cultural identity of being Welsh, however you are completely wrong on the rest. The usage of "England and Wales" in legal documentation to refer to laws valid in those territories is pretty recent historically (18th Century). Wales ceased to exist as an independent and separate state after the conquest (when it lost its territory) and later rebellion (when it lost its laws). It remained so until the early 20th Century when it was re-recognised as a constituent state within Great Britain and the UK.Gaidheal said:
The Act of Union which formed Great Britain was between Scotland and England, which included the territory of Wales. The later inclusion of Ireland formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (later: and Northern Ireland).
- Status
