Thread: Dreadnoughts thread on military history

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

The SSB refers to the British Attack on Fort McHenry, Maryland, not the battle of New Orleans. The British invaded near D.C. in 1814, ran off a terrible U.S. Army, and burned Washington, D.C. in retaliation for our burning York Ontario earlier that year (now Toronto.) My understanding is that the White House was painted white to cover the scorch marks. Anyways, the British were stymied at Fort McHenry, where they had expected another easy win over what was the Bengals of 1814 Armies.

Andrew Jackson defeated a British Army at New Orleans in 1815. It was probably the most pointless battle in history, as it occurred a few weeks after the peace treaty was signed in Ghent, Belgium - it just took a while to get the word to the Gulf in those days. Kind of like a week 16 win for a Team that missed the Playoffs, but it did improve the morale of a U.S. Army that had performed pretty badly throughout the War. The U.S. Navy covered itself in glory; our Army flat out stunk. Eventually we got it through our heads that the legend of the farmer-soldier was pretty much mythology. They didn't beat professionals in the Revolution (that required George Washington and Baron von Steuben creating an actual professional Army,) and they didn't beat them in 1812.

The myth of the victorious American amateur soldier persists even to this day, for example in such movies as the Gawdawful "The Patriot." School kids are raised believing that Americans fought from behind trees and fences, while the bonehead British stood out in the open. Truth is, the British had units devoted to "skirmishing" from behind trees and such (called 'Light Infantry", and considered elite), whilst Americans finally started being competitive in open battles once Washington and Von Steuben had trained them to operate in the open, in formal line formations.

Thousands of men were killed in the Mexican and Civil Wars because many American politicians didn't think a professionally trained officer or nco corps were suitable for a Republic, and anyways, there was always the examples of Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill, right?

Yes, I know. Pet peeve of mine. In military History my strong suit is 17th-18th Century warfare and it is taught badly.

You and I are gonna do a lot of talking when I'm putting together my next book series, a war and magic fantasy series based on the lives of the composers (chief among them, Chevalier de Saint-George) and the politics of the time.

My war skills will need a-polishin'.

~G

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I have not, though I am kind of a Mossad admirer. They played hardball with the ******** who killed the Olympic athletes in 1972

Oh yeah. There was a chapter on that.

They have people everywhere.

Originally Posted by G_Money

You and I are gonna do a lot of talking when I'm putting together my next book series, a war and magic fantasy series based on the lives of the composers (chief among them, Chevalier de Saint-George) and the politics of the time.

My war skills will need a-polishin'.

~G

My part of the country is steeped in it G. My church even has a dead Viscount, Lord Augustus Howe, buried in the entryway, the only titled member of British Nobility buried in North America. He's was killed by Indians in the French and Indian war, but was a deadly and very innovative light infantry General. He took Redcoats, replaced the brass button with black, darkened their cross-straps, took away their bayonets and had tomahawks issued to them. They were individually trained in marksmanship (as opposed to volley fire) and gave the Algonquian Indians all kinds of Hell in the forests of the Adirondacks. the little black riding cap you see now in equestrian events was an invention of his, where he had his light infantry cut down their black tricorne hats into small caps more suited to heavy forests.

His Brother William commanded the British Army in the Revolution, and Brother Richard crushed the Revolutionary French Navy at the Battle of the Glorious First of June in 1793. A talented bunch.

Braddock gets a bad rap for getting wiped out and all, but had his guys in light infantry kit. Just not heads up enough to avoid a slaughter.

Another good story is Marathon, where the Persians outnumbered the Greeks by around 10 -1. Greeks met them on the beach when they were trying to land and fought them in a narrow area where the Persian numbers could not count. Persians were lightly armored and used wicker shields vs greeks in oak shields covered by bronze. Perrsians were slaughtered when they bolted.

For another pluck underdog story there is Thermopolye - badly told in 300. This was revenge for the thwarted Marathon campaign.

Dread (or anyone) have you read a book called "Fire in the Lake" by Frances Fitzgerald? It's an account on the Vietnam war. I read most of it awhile back. It's more of a political and cultural account than anything. If so, what was your take?

Originally Posted by Ottokar Prohaska

Braddock gets a bad rap for getting wiped out and all, but had his guys in light infantry kit. Just not heads up enough to avoid a slaughter.

Another good story is Marathon, where the Persians outnumbered the Greeks by around 10 -1. Greeks met them on the beach when they were trying to land and fought them in a narrow area where the Persian numbers could not count. Persians were lightly armored and used wicker shields vs greeks in oak shields covered by bronze. Perrsians were slaughtered when they bolted.

For another pluck underdog story there is Thermopolye - badly told in 300. This was revenge for the thwarted Marathon campaign.

300, although entertaining, is a poor depiction of Thermopolye from what I am told


the Marathon battle sounds more like 300

Oak Shields must have been heavy as shit.

Dread I forgot to ask have you picked up Wellington's Rife by Urban yet? If not I strongly recommend it. Also the Great Game by Hopkirk is worth it.

Originally Posted by bronconut

300, although entertaining, is a poor depiction of Thermopolye from what I am told


the Marathon battle sounds more like 300

Oak Shields must have been heavy as shit.

Oak Shields covered in Bronze though very heavy beats wicker though when you are actually fighting

Originally Posted by Ottokar Prohaska

Oak Shields covered in Bronze though very heavy beats wicker though when you are actually fighting

I like to fight in comfort. I would have chosen oak to survive the archers, but would have gone wicker with the hand to hand. I feel as if I would be much more agile with the less heavy shield. that's just me though

I'm not that up on Ancient warfare, but I thought Greek shields were oxhide stretched over a frame - tough and still fairly light. I could be wrong though

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I'm not that up on Ancient warfare, but I thought Greek shields were oxhide stretched over a frame - tough and still fairly light. I could be wrong though

Oxhide? that would surprise me. I would think that an arrow would easily penetrate that. I think you should review your history a bit dread

Originally Posted by bronconut

Oxhide? that would surprise me. I would think that an arrow would easily penetrate that. I think you should review your history a bit dread

Oxhide is pretty tough stuff, Nut. It was even used to make armor in the Middle Ages by boiling it in oil. The Zulus made very tough and light shields out of oxhide after all. I just don't know about Ancient Greeks. As for arrows, it doesn't matter if the arrow pokes through a shield as long as it stops; most Ancient arrows didn't have the force of an English Longbow or the like in any event

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Oxhide is pretty tough stuff, Nut. It was even used to make armor in the Middle Ages by boiling it in oil. The Zulus made very tough and light shields out of oxhide after all. I just don't know about Ancient Greeks. As for arrows, it doesn't matter if the arrow pokes through a shield as long as it stops; most Ancient arrows didn't have the force of an English Longbow or the like in any event

oxhide huh? boiled in oil.

thank you!!

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Oxhide is pretty tough stuff, Nut. It was even used to make armor in the Middle Ages by boiling it in oil. The Zulus made very tough and light shields out of oxhide after all. I just don't know about Ancient Greeks. As for arrows, it doesn't matter if the arrow pokes through a shield as long as it stops; most Ancient arrows didn't have the force of an English Longbow or the like in any event

The Greek shields were strips of wood covered with bronze with leather on the inside. They were relatively thin, about 2 in in the middle, thinner on the edges, and weight approximately 18 lbs. (yes i looked it up)

Originally Posted by BigDaddyBronco

The Greek shields were strips of wood covered with bronze with leather on the inside. They were relatively thin, about 2 in in the middle, thinner on the edges, and weight approximately 18 lbs. (yes i looked it up)

interesting. strips of wood covered with bronze with leather on the insided. that makes sense with what I saw inthe 300. sometimes the arrows would stick into the shield