Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd say Industrial Era. (1860-1900). This was the period where centuries old Military traditions originated in either The Renaissance or The Enlightenment met the challenges of technology leaps. Before 1860, you may still have a fancy army like La Grande Armee and win the war... even without riflemen. but American Civil War, and shortly later... Koniggratz, challenged these ages old traditions (and cadet school courses written by European Bluebloods) to the core. In some battles, Combatants wield smoothbore muskets (some even wield century-old Brown Bess with the same ol' flint and steel) as standard infantry weapon, Sharpshooters (some with breech loading rifles, others with specially crafted muzzle loader firing specialized bullets) doin' a modern sniper action. and gunslingers with six shooters and repeaters... Wooden sailships smashed by a rampaging steam-powered Ironclads. (And later an inconclusive duel against a different type of Iron steam ship). Rifled 'cannons' tried to double itself as 'Howitzers'. and .... the Introduction of ....... 'The Machine Gun'... The era that proves the importances of technology. (Especially at Koniggratz ... where Prussian troops armed with Dreyse breech loader handily defeated Austrians armed with Lorenz rifled muskets (Also found in ACW).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Subjects I interested in:

- XVIII century wars. Fancy tricorns but tactis so-so.
- Napoleonics. Looks cool, but too many casualties.

What are the differences between the Enlightenment Era (18th C. ) and Napoleonics? besides fashions (Tricornes, plumes and bigwigs in the Enlightenment. Tophats and Shakoes in Napoleonics).
from 1700 to 1830/1850. not much is changed in terms of weaponry, same ol' things, Firelocks, Smoothbore muzzle loaders, Rifles are for the riches. Bayonets are a must.... ETC. etc.
In some Videogames. (Empire Total War, Napoleon Total War, and Civilization series) Both are colloqially called 'The Industrial Era'

 Lone Cat wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Subjects I interested in:

- XVIII century wars. Fancy tricorns but tactis so-so.
- Napoleonics. Looks cool, but too many casualties.

What are the differences between the Enlightenment Era (18th C. ) and Napoleonics? besides fashions (Tricornes, plumes and bigwigs in the Enlightenment. Tophats and Shakoes in Napoleonics).
from 1700 to 1830/1850. not much is changed in terms of weaponry, same ol' things, Firelocks, Smoothbore muzzle loaders, Rifles are for the riches. Bayonets are a must.... ETC. etc.
In some Videogames. (Empire Total War, Napoleon Total War, and Civilization series) Both are colloqially called 'The Industrial Era'

Years of playing 15mm Napoleon's Battles has taught me that Artillery Superiority usually wins. Napoleon was on such an incredible winning streak because (among other things) he knew how to use his artillery most effectively.

Late medieval and very early modern period for me. Essentially the era from the introduction of gunpowder into war until the point where gunpowder becomes the dominant way of waging war. Also the age where plate armour was developed and became king, and even the early firearms couldn't reliably pierce it until the very last part (the equipment of this timespan is characterised by an arms race between armour and weaponry).

It was an era of intense experimentation, exploration and changing tactics. Some of the battles and campaigns, like the Siege of Malta, are just barmy in the tactics and weapons employed. The cultures underpinning these innovations and warfare are equally fascinating, and in many ways more alien to modern life than the culture of Romans or classical Greeks.

 Kroem wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Battle of Thermopylae era. The Greeks and Spartans were truly a force rooted in discipline and strength.

Side note my wife told me every time I left to come back with my shield or on it.

Reading Herodotus' 'The Histories' recently I was struck by the opposite, the warfare in that period was so haphazard with no real units as such and highly dependant on the vagaries of oracles.

I liked the one battle where the Spartans wanted to face the Immortals and the Immortals wanted to face the Athenians, but the Athenians wanted to be positioned on the opposite flank from the Spartans. So both battle lines stood opposite each other shuffling about all day until somebody accidentally started the battle haha!

I would also be very careful when dealing with Herodotus because he does make an awful lot of crap up as he goes along.

However I do really enjoy the "classic era" from about 500bc to 500ad, how everything changed, and how nothing much changed too. People will say how the phalanx was outdated yar yar yar, but we were still using pike based phalanxes 1000 years later in the shot and pike era.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Kroem wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Battle of Thermopylae era. The Greeks and Spartans were truly a force rooted in discipline and strength.

Side note my wife told me every time I left to come back with my shield or on it.

Reading Herodotus' 'The Histories' recently I was struck by the opposite, the warfare in that period was so haphazard with no real units as such and highly dependant on the vagaries of oracles.

I liked the one battle where the Spartans wanted to face the Immortals and the Immortals wanted to face the Athenians, but the Athenians wanted to be positioned on the opposite flank from the Spartans. So both battle lines stood opposite each other shuffling about all day until somebody accidentally started the battle haha!

I would also be very careful when dealing with Herodotus because he does make an awful lot of crap up as he goes along.

However I do really enjoy the "classic era" from about 500bc to 500ad, how everything changed, and how nothing much changed too. People will say how the phalanx was outdated yar yar yar, but we were still using pike based phalanxes 1000 years later in the shot and pike era.

I would argue there are some big differences between late medieval/early modern era pike blocks, and classical phalanges though. In particular, combined arms were a much more integral part of the functioning of pike blocks, until firearms reached the point that they could replace them (with bayonets). The phalanx was much more homogenous, I think in part due to the expectation they were very unlikely to close beyond pike range into sword melees, but perhaps due to differences in the prevalence of martial training between ancient civilians and medieval civilians. Part of the specialisation of the Spartans for phalanx combat was in improving their sidearms to be fair, but they didn't mix in halberdiers or targetiers to account for "bad war" in addition to effective sidearms.

It is true that pike blocks got increasingly more homogenous through the 16th century as armies got larger. Probably because quickly training decent pikers is a lot easier than quickly training halberdiers or targetiers, which are very skilled roles.

I always feel awkward when talking about military periods I "like" because it's hard to "like" something that causes the death and suffering of hundreds, thousands or even millions of people.

That said, WW2 primarily for the machines involved. The air war was like nothing that ever happened before and it will never happen again. Incredible tank battles, Kursk consisted of over 10,000 armoured vehicles, that's more tanks than many other battles consisted of men in total.

SYW, AWI through Waterloo. Naval of the same period us great as well.

 Lone Cat wrote:


What are the differences between the Enlightenment Era (18th C. ) and Napoleonics? besides fashions (Tricornes, plumes and bigwigs in the Enlightenment. Tophats and Shakoes in Napoleonics).
from 1700 to 1830/1850. not much is changed in terms of weaponry, same ol' things, Firelocks, Smoothbore muzzle loaders, Rifles are for the riches. Bayonets are a must.... ETC. etc.
In some Videogames. (Empire Total War, Napoleon Total War, and Civilization series) Both are colloqially called 'The Industrial Era'

The Napoleonic wars are fascinating as they represent what's known as a Revolution in Military Affairs with sweeping changes to the way war was conducred, but unlike WW1 or the Wars of German Unification, it was theory rather than technology that changed things so dramatically. A lot of this comes from Napoleon himself, his real strength is perhaps not in his tactical ability to win battle, or even his strategic approach to wars (though he was undeniably skilled in those fields) but in his understanding of man-management, logistics and organisation.

Specifically, it all goes back to the introduction of the Corps system and the Levee En Masse.

The first of these fundamentally changed the battlefield as while everyone else was coming to battle in units of Divisions, the French under Napoleon moved in Corps, consisting of 3 to 5 divisions (typically 3 infantry, 1 cavalry and one artillery). This had a few major advantages. Primarily, concentrated numbers with cavalry and artillery support meant that a Corps could fight autonomously if the opportunity arose, whereas more traditional division-based armies would need to wait for those supporting elements to show up so they could effectively fight. Additionally, a corps could move far faster than a full army, live off the land more effectively (something Napoleon encouraged on foreign campaigns to keep the treasury happy)

This meant Napoleon's armies could move rapidly in separate Corps, rock up the the battlefield and begin fighting immediately, where a Prussian or British or Russian army would need to spend longer drawing up a battle line and coordinating with support elements. This basically meant that in the first years of Napoleon's conquest that his armies always had the element of surprise and thus could always fight on an aggressive posture which put Napoleon in his element as a commander.

The Levee En Masse is a holdover from the French revolution, but remained in place throughout the Napoleonic period. Basically a decree of conscription, it stated that not only must every able bodied man in France must be available for military service, but also that in times of war the entire population, must dedicate itself to the war effort; industry would produce munitions and weapons as a priority, farmers would create stockpiles and everyone would support the war in whatever way they could. Functionally, this allowed the French to put down armies far, far larger than the small professional armies of the rest of Europe, and something Napoleon excelled at was making the best use of this; one of the reasons he so frequently adopted an offensive posture was that he knew a peasant army could charge forward with patriotic, revolutionary fervor far more effectively than it could hold a line.


The reason this is so significant for military history as a whole is that, after Napoleon's initial ass-kickings across Europe, pretty much every army he fought began to restructure along Napoleonic lines, introducing Corps as the standard unit of battle and movement, bringing in conscription in some form or another (except in Britain), along with a renewed focus of staff and officer training (though in Britain you could still legally buy your way into an officer role for some time... we were quite slow to realise that trained professionals made more effective leaders than rich boys.) Between 1809 and 1815, every European army underwent these extensive reforms, universally after being smashed by Napoleon's new way of war. Thus, without any dramatic technological shift, the Napoleonic wars redefined military thinking for the better part of the next century (and especially the American Civil War).

This is further evidenced in the fact the period produced two of the most influential military historians of the 19th century, Carl Von Clasuewitz and Anton-Henri Du Jomini. Both these men defined European and American warfare until at least WW1, and in Clausewitz's case, arguably long after. But that's all I'll say about them for now, else I'll be here all day...

Apologies for the extreme nerd-out wall of text, hopefully someone finds it interesting!

 Paradigm wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:


What are the differences between the Enlightenment Era (18th C. ) and Napoleonics? besides fashions (Tricornes, plumes and bigwigs in the Enlightenment. Tophats and Shakoes in Napoleonics).
from 1700 to 1830/1850. not much is changed in terms of weaponry, same ol' things, Firelocks, Smoothbore muzzle loaders, Rifles are for the riches. Bayonets are a must.... ETC. etc.
In some Videogames. (Empire Total War, Napoleon Total War, and Civilization series) Both are colloqially called 'The Industrial Era'

The Napoleonic wars are fascinating as they represent what's known as a Revolution in Military Affairs with sweeping changes to the way war was conducred, but unlike WW1 or the Wars of German Unification, it was theory rather than technology that changed things so dramatically. A lot of this comes from Napoleon himself, his real strength is perhaps not in his tactical ability to win battle, or even his strategic approach to wars (though he was undeniably skilled in those fields) but in his understanding of man-management, logistics and organisation.

Specifically, it all goes back to the introduction of the Corps system and the Levee En Masse.

The first of these fundamentally changed the battlefield as while everyone else was coming to battle in units of Divisions, the French under Napoleon moved in Corps, consisting of 3 to 5 divisions (typically 3 infantry, 1 cavalry and one artillery). This had a few major advantages. Primarily, concentrated numbers with cavalry and artillery support meant that a Corps could fight autonomously if the opportunity arose, whereas more traditional division-based armies would need to wait for those supporting elements to show up so they could effectively fight. Additionally, a corps could move far faster than a full army, live off the land more effectively (something Napoleon encouraged on foreign campaigns to keep the treasury happy)

This meant Napoleon's armies could move rapidly in separate Corps, rock up the the battlefield and begin fighting immediately, where a Prussian or British or Russian army would need to spend longer drawing up a battle line and coordinating with support elements. This basically meant that in the first years of Napoleon's conquest that his armies always had the element of surprise and thus could always fight on an aggressive posture which put Napoleon in his element as a commander.

The Levee En Masse is a holdover from the French revolution, but remained in place throughout the Napoleonic period. Basically a decree of conscription, it stated that not only must every able bodied man in France must be available for military service, but also that in times of war the entire population, must dedicate itself to the war effort; industry would produce munitions and weapons as a priority, farmers would create stockpiles and everyone would support the war in whatever way they could. Functionally, this allowed the French to put down armies far, far larger than the small professional armies of the rest of Europe, and something Napoleon excelled at was making the best use of this; one of the reasons he so frequently adopted an offensive posture was that he knew a peasant army could charge forward with patriotic, revolutionary fervor far more effectively than it could hold a line.


The reason this is so significant for military history as a whole is that, after Napoleon's initial ass-kickings across Europe, pretty much every army he fought began to restructure along Napoleonic lines, introducing Corps as the standard unit of battle and movement, bringing in conscription in some form or another (except in Britain), along with a renewed focus of staff and officer training (though in Britain you could still legally buy your way into an officer role for some time... we were quite slow to realise that trained professionals made more effective leaders than rich boys.) Between 1809 and 1815, every European army underwent these extensive reforms, universally after being smashed by Napoleon's new way of war. Thus, without any dramatic technological shift, the Napoleonic wars redefined military thinking for the better part of the next century (and especially the American Civil War).

This is further evidenced in the fact the period produced two of the most influential military historians of the 19th century, Carl Von Clasuewitz and Anton-Henri Du Jomini. Both these men defined European and American warfare until at least WW1, and in Clausewitz's case, arguably long after. But that's all I'll say about them for now, else I'll be here all day...

Apologies for the extreme nerd-out wall of text, hopefully someone finds it interesting!

I did So they were essentially strategic changes that gave the French military massive local tactical advantages that were exploited by Napoleon. This is interesting, because in the past I've only ever really looked at the tactical aspects of warfare in the period, which doesn't see much change.

Yep, that's exactly it. Not to take anything away from Napoleon as a commander, as he was surely very talented in that regard, but I'd argue his greatest asset was his understanding of organisation, management and making best use of what he had available; this is why he has far more success than the wars fought be Revolutionary France a decade earlier despite a fairly similar army composition.

For instance, both fought with large armies of conscripted peasants, but Napoleon ensured they were as well-provisioned and drilled as time and logistics would allow, whereas the previous iteration of that same army was happy to send thousands of untrained men rushing forward in a skirmishing mass and hope the 'revolutionary spirit' would be enough to carry the day... Which is true when you have the enemy outnumbered several times over, but those armies quickly came unstuck when they ran up against highly-trained, professional Prussian/Austrian/British forces who had effective command structures and pre-battle positioning. Any encounter in that period where the French lacked numerical advantage, the opposing force almost always won.

By contrast, Napoleon insisted that his armies be trained to at least a basic degree, and was very effective at implementing a meritocratic system for promotions; the mass of the army might be inferior troops, but their officers at the tactical and grand tactical level would be at least as competent as their counterparts on the other side (and the Corps structure helped here, as you were diving your army into larger sub-sections, you needed fewer commanders at the top level as a Corps would act as one on the battlefield). Thus, even on occasions where he lacked numerical advantage (a battle Revolutionary French armies would almost certainly lose) he was able to win or at least survive thanks to the effective manner in which he organised his command structure and his understanding that being angrily revolutionary could only get you so far if you can't shoot for toffee.

Simply put, whereas in the late 1700s the French army had a massive numerical advantage but was of exceptionally poor quality, Napoleon's French army 10 years later was so far ahead of the enemy in theory, doctrine and organisation that the nations he defeated were essentially forced into copying his reforms for themselves to have a chance of defeating him. It is interesting that the only real change on the battlefield itself was that the battles got larger, but this period transformed war on a strategic and logistical level in an unprecedented way.

On a side note, the introduction of the Corps as the standard unit and the widespread acceptance of conscription (along with the Industrial Revolution spearheaded by Britain through the 19th century) can be seen as the start of mass industrial warfare; battles in the 19th Century could be orders of magnitude larger than in the 18th, as could the logistical demands and casualty figures, and this trend can ultimately be traced right through to the First World War, with its highly industrialised armies on an immense scale spanning multiple theatres and fronts. An strong argument can be made that the 'Long 19th Century' from the French Revolution to WW1 represents the most radial and rapid shift in the dynamics of warfare in history; in the space of just over 100 years you go from armies of a few thousand clashing over borders and territory to armies in the millions, with highly politicised war aims, grand alliances and fronts spanning continents, fought to the bitter end.

 Paradigm wrote:
Additionally, a corps could move far faster than a full army, live off the land more effectively (something Napoleon encouraged on foreign campaigns to keep the treasury happy)

I think this aspect needs emphasising far more firmly. Part of the reason that large armies were generally cumbersome and impractical was because of the logistical aspect. Feeding a hundred thousand men for any period of time was a challenging task. Combined with the general lack of an effective centralised military bureaucracy (Frederick the Great being the obvious exception), and the gentrification of the conduct of warfare, it was almost impossible to do in an efficient fashion.

Where Napoleon went differently with his conscript armies was in his brutal directives to simply live off the land and people of the enemy. Like the barbarian hordes of old, Napoleon's men would simply confiscate whatever they needed from the populace of wherever he was invading, meaning that his supply trains were minimal and his ground forces could move infinitely faster than those which utilised a slower, heavier, more regular (and ethical) supply chain.

Naturally, this imposed certain strategic limitations in turn. It meant that the French Army could never stay in one spot for long before exhausting the local supplies; Russia is the obvious example but there are plenty of others.

Very true, and that is certainly a bit part of the reason that particular element didn't catch on while many other parts of Napoleon's methodology did. Even leaving aside ethical concerns, you can see in both Russia and the Peninsular campaigns how Napoleon's enemies came to realise that although the dynamic of logistics had changed, they remained a major strategic weakness. Hence, in Spain, you get essentially early guerrillas destroying supplies rather than letting the French keep using them, and the Russians adopting a scorched earth policy on their retreat that ultimately and decisively crippled Napoleon's Russian campaign (The French army that set out was nearly 700,000, and of those only 27,000 returned to France in fit state, and the vast majority of those losses were due to starvation and disease rather than the decisive battles Napoleon firmly believed were the key to defeating an army).


On the other hand, it can't be denied that it was a massive part of Napoleon's success not just as a military leader but as a ruler as well; it's far easier to keep the nation in support of a war effort when they aren't bearing the cost, or having to go hungry so the soldiery can keep fighting. Hence why when the Allied Coalition counter-attack reaches France in 1814, and the population start to starve to keep the army fed, Napoleon's forces and public support both rapidly become less enthusiastic and effective.

Three stand out for me.

1) The age of sail, although somewhat before the "golden age" has always fascinated me. The notion of privateers fighting under letters of marque, but basically being little better than pirates, the pirates themselves and then true navy captains all in a three-way battle against each other, but also for and against the various nation states just made it so interesting. It all started with a leather-bound large-format book I found on my Dad's bookshelf as a kid.

2) The Napoleonic Era, especially the Peninsula War has always had an appeal since I first watched Sharpe's Rifles on TV. Since then, I've read a lot more fiction, but probably even more history. Napoleon himself is a pretty fascinating character, but so were some of his marshalls, and Wellington too was worth reading about, along with his generals.

3) Absolute top for me though, is Sengoku Jidai, the Era of Warring States in Japan, and the time most people think of when they think about Samurai. The novel Shogun by James Clavell was based on a real-life Englishman, and I lived in a road named after him, so my interest quickly expanded from the novel, to biographies to general history of the era. I then came to love ukiyo-e art, especially that of Yoshitoshi, who depicted many samurai in his art. I eventually landed up living in Japan for a couple of years and the castles I have visitied and museums I have wandered have all kept me interested in every element of samurai. Reading various manga, such as Lone Wolf and Cub has made me interested in the wider world of that era, not just the samurai.

 Lone Cat wrote:


What are the differences between the Enlightenment Era (18th C. ) and Napoleonics? besides fashions (Tricornes, plumes and bigwigs in the Enlightenment. Tophats and Shakoes in Napoleonics).
from 1700 to 1830/1850. not much is changed in terms of weaponry, same ol' things, Firelocks, Smoothbore muzzle loaders, Rifles are for the riches. Bayonets are a must.... ETC. etc.
In some Videogames. (Empire Total War, Napoleon Total War, and Civilization series) Both are colloqially called 'The Industrial Era'

18th: Stand in a long line opposite each other and shoot until becomes boring. Repeat next day.

Napoleonics: Gather a huge army, organize them into columns, send them marching into enemy guns, send a second column to step over deads and crush enemies with bayonettes, then another, and then reserves, and then cavalry, chasing the enemy to his capital.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Kroem wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Battle of Thermopylae era. The Greeks and Spartans were truly a force rooted in discipline and strength.

Side note my wife told me every time I left to come back with my shield or on it.

Reading Herodotus' 'The Histories' recently I was struck by the opposite, the warfare in that period was so haphazard with no real units as such and highly dependant on the vagaries of oracles.

I liked the one battle where the Spartans wanted to face the Immortals and the Immortals wanted to face the Athenians, but the Athenians wanted to be positioned on the opposite flank from the Spartans. So both battle lines stood opposite each other shuffling about all day until somebody accidentally started the battle haha!

I would also be very careful when dealing with Herodotus because he does make an awful lot of crap up as he goes along.

However I do really enjoy the "classic era" from about 500bc to 500ad, how everything changed, and how nothing much changed too. People will say how the phalanx was outdated yar yar yar, but we were still using pike based phalanxes 1000 years later in the shot and pike era.

I think that is a little unfair, he makes it clear that he is reporting what his sources tell him and he travelled the ancient world extensively in an attempt to verify the information.
That things in his book have been proven untrue in the fullness of time does not diminish his efforts in my eyes.

In fact, that he was willing to publish contradictory sources of information and try to make a judgement on their veracity and credibility marks him out as a historian of the truest stripe!

1880-1980. All sorts of madness.

 Kroem wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Kroem wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Battle of Thermopylae era. The Greeks and Spartans were truly a force rooted in discipline and strength.

Side note my wife told me every time I left to come back with my shield or on it.

Reading Herodotus' 'The Histories' recently I was struck by the opposite, the warfare in that period was so haphazard with no real units as such and highly dependant on the vagaries of oracles.

I liked the one battle where the Spartans wanted to face the Immortals and the Immortals wanted to face the Athenians, but the Athenians wanted to be positioned on the opposite flank from the Spartans. So both battle lines stood opposite each other shuffling about all day until somebody accidentally started the battle haha!

I would also be very careful when dealing with Herodotus because he does make an awful lot of crap up as he goes along.

However I do really enjoy the "classic era" from about 500bc to 500ad, how everything changed, and how nothing much changed too. People will say how the phalanx was outdated yar yar yar, but we were still using pike based phalanxes 1000 years later in the shot and pike era.

I think that is a little unfair, he makes it clear that he is reporting what his sources tell him and he travelled the ancient world extensively in an attempt to verify the information.
That things in his book have been proven untrue in the fullness of time does not diminish his efforts in my eyes.

In fact, that he was willing to publish contradictory sources of information and try to make a judgement on their veracity and credibility marks him out as a historian of the truest stripe!

Such as saying people from India had black semen and there were spiders who collected gold.

Never forget, he was an orator first, he's still a good primary source though. Just a little bit adventurous with his ideas.

 welshhoppo wrote:
... there were spiders who collected gold...

Well, now I know how I'm going to make my fortune So where did he say these spiders lived?

 Haighus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
... there were spiders who collected gold...

Well, now I know how I'm going to make my fortune So where did he say these spiders lived?

Be careful, those spiders are quick.

Other Indians, to the east of these, are nomads and eat raw flesh; they are called Padaei. It is said to be their custom that when anyone of their fellows, whether man or woman, is sick, a man's closest friends kill him, saying that if wasted by disease he will be lost to them as meat; though he denies that he is sick, they will not believe him, but kill and eat him. [2] When a woman is sick, she is put to death like the men by the women who are her close acquaintances. As for one that has come to old age, they sacrifice him and feast on his flesh; but not many reach this reckoning, for before that everyone who falls ill they kill. 100.

There are other Indians, again, who kill no living creature, nor plant anything, nor are accustomed to have houses; they eat grass, and they have a grain growing naturally from the earth in its husk, about the size of a millet-seed, which they gather with the husk and boil and eat. When any one of them falls sick, he goes into the desert and lies there, and no one notices whether he is sick or dies. 101.

These Indians whom I have described have intercourse openly like cattle; they are all black-skinned, like the Ethiopians. [2] Their semen too, which they ejaculate into the women, is not white like other men's, but black like their skin, and resembles in this respect that of the Ethiopians. These Indians dwell far away from the Persians southwards, and were not subjects of King Darius. 102.

Other Indians dwell near the town of Caspatyrus and the Pactyic country,34 north of the rest of India; these live like the Bactrians; they are of all Indians the most warlike, and it is they who are sent for the gold; for in these parts all is desolate because of the sand. [2] In this sandy desert are ants,35 not as big as dogs but bigger than foxes; the Persian king has some of these, which have been caught there. These ants live underground, digging out the sand in the same way as the ants in Greece, to which they are very similar in shape, and the sand which they carry from the holes is full of gold. [3] It is for this sand that the Indians set forth into the desert. They harness three camels apiece, males on either side sharing the drawing, and a female in the middle: the man himself rides on the female, that when harnessed has been taken away from as young an offspring as may be. Their camels are as swift as horses, and much better able to bear burdens besides. 103.

I do not describe the camel's appearance to Greeks, for they know it; but I shall tell them something that they do not know concerning it: the hindlegs of the camel have four thighbones and four knee-joints; its genitals are turned towards the tail between the hindlegs. 104.

Thus and with teams so harnessed the Indians ride after the gold, being careful to be engaged in taking it when the heat is greatest; for the ants are then out of sight underground. [2] Now in these parts the sun is hottest in the morning, not at midday as elsewhere, but from sunrise to the hour of market-closing. Through these hours it is much hotter than in Hellas at noon, so that men are said to sprinkle themselves with water at this time. [3] At midday the sun's heat is nearly the same in India as elsewhere. As it goes to afternoon, the sun of India has the power of the morning sun in other lands; as day declines it becomes ever cooler, until at sunset it is exceedingly cold. 105.

So when the Indians come to the place with their sacks, they fill these with the sand and drive back as fast as possible; for the ants at once scent them out, the Persians say, and give chase. They say nothing is equal to them for speed, so that unless the Indians have a headstart while the ants were gathering, not one of them would get away. [2] They cut loose the male trace-camels, which are slower than the females, as they begin to lag, one at a time; the mares never tire, for they remember the young that they have left. Such is the tale. Most of the gold (say the Persians) is got in this way by the Indians; they dig some from mines in their country, too, but it is less abundant. 106.

My main period has always been WWII, it is a period of conflict that was on a scale never seen before and hopefully will never be seen again. There are so many different theaters, ways of fighting, ideologies, true heroes and villains, technology, etc. etc. that it just boggles the mind. The airplanes, the tanks, the weapons and tactics used by the infantry, there are just so many different varieties it boggles the mind. I know the main theaters have been done to death but there are so many smaller parts of the war that contribute to it that you could probably never run out of armies and theaters to play even in an entire lifetime of wargaming.

If I had to pick a "favorite" theater for lack of a better word, it would be the Ostfront, or essentially the war Germany had with Russia and all the other people that got dragged into it. Some of the largest battles in human history were fought there, and there are single engagements there that eclipse entire wars in scale. It is an absolutely incredible part of human history. Everytime I buy into a WWII type of system, the first things I get are Germans and Russians, without fail, that's how much that theater interests me. It's a shame we don't have more accounts from the Russians, so we're forced to largely take the German's word for it, but even then the accounts tell of some pretty incredible acts on both sides. Dmitriy Loza's book about commanding the Red Army's Shermans and Otto Carius's Tigers in the Mud alone should be required reading for anyone reading about WWII, whether or not they play an eastern front army. It really makes you appreciate the scale of the conflict there and how the Soviets shouldered the lion's share of the work in breaking the German's back so that the Allies could even land in Europe in the first place.

I'm slowly becoming interested in Napoleonics thanks to Napoleon Total War, but I doubt it will be a permanent fixation quite like WWII is. The uniforms are pretty and the tactics are interesting, but I just don't think I have it in me to paint a Napoleonic army at any scale when I've got an infantry IG army, and have painted Soviet infantry hordes in 15mm AND 28mm.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:


What are the differences between the Enlightenment Era (18th C. ) and Napoleonics? besides fashions (Tricornes, plumes and bigwigs in the Enlightenment. Tophats and Shakoes in Napoleonics).
from 1700 to 1830/1850. not much is changed in terms of weaponry, same ol' things, Firelocks, Smoothbore muzzle loaders, Rifles are for the riches. Bayonets are a must.... ETC. etc.
In some Videogames. (Empire Total War, Napoleon Total War, and Civilization series) Both are colloqially called 'The Industrial Era'

18th: Stand in a long line opposite each other and shoot until becomes boring. Repeat next day.

Really? Did the battles in the Enlightenment Era fights that way where either sides may just simply quit the battle only because of boredon rather than a hardcore bayonet charge and serious Hussars hot pursiuts?

 Lone Cat wrote:
[
Really? Did the battles in the Enlightenment Era fights that way where either sides may just simply quit the battle only because of boredon rather than a hardcore bayonet charge and serious Hussars hot pursiuts?

This was the era of stagnation of military art. Generals were more worried about wigs being powdered . Changes began with the revolutionary army of France, which simply could not afford to just stand and die. They did not have weapons and provisions for this, so used column rush tactics. In Russia, the tactics revival started by Suvorov. At that time the concentration of forces in the main direction and a decisive assault - it was something unusual. Such a decline was in tactics. And yes, some generals stopped the battle when they got tired. Don't know much about the cavalry. I know, that in 18th Russia there were no good horses, so it used mainly by dragoons, without typical cavalry fightings. But it changed a lot just before Napoleonic wars

The period I intentionally studied the most in college was the HRE, specifically during the Peasants' War of 1525 and the Thirty Years' War, and branching out a bit into the Italian Wars (ya know, they were going on at the tail end of the Ezio games of Assassin's Creed) of the late 15th, early 16th century


Beyond that, I am massively interested in WW1, as I find, similar to the Peasants' War, good scholarship is somewhat lacking. It would seem that all the "major" historians study other wars from WW1. Heck, even the Thirty Years' War has a very sparse section at my uni library (well, it's divided more by country history, but still. . . when you know what you're looking for, even in other country sections, there's very little outside of HRE views on the war).

In studying it over the last few years, I've found that there's a fair amount of good academic writing on WW1, the trick is finding it. Simply due to the sheer scale and scope of the war, you'll find it hard to come across a general text that covers everything in sufficient detail, but if you go for specific areas, fronts or elements (air warfare, the emergence of armour, infantry battles, the strategic element ect) you can find some good stuff. I find edited collections are quite good for this, often you'll get a general theme across the whole book but then very tight, focused chapters that really home in on some very specific but interesting.

Also historical journals if you have access to any of those through your uni, you'll often find the newest ideas in there since it might take a historian a couple of years to research and produce an article but the better part of a decade to produce a book, especially if the content is trying to push the boundaries of the established writings on the subject.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The period I intentionally studied the most in college was the HRE, specifically during the Peasants' War of 1525 and the Thirty Years' War, and branching out a bit into the Italian Wars (ya know, they were going on at the tail end of the Ezio games of Assassin's Creed) of the late 15th, early 16th century


Beyond that, I am massively interested in WW1, as I find, similar to the Peasants' War, good scholarship is somewhat lacking. It would seem that all the "major" historians study other wars from WW1. Heck, even the Thirty Years' War has a very sparse section at my uni library (well, it's divided more by country history, but still. . . when you know what you're looking for, even in other country sections, there's very little outside of HRE views on the war).

There are plenty of excellent works on WW1. You just need to know what you're looking for. Googling 'History of WW1' just brings up a lot of general stuff written by amateurs and journalists for the most part. The truly excellent work tends to be in the specifics, eg. a book dedicated on the reasons for war, a book dedicated to tactics, a book dedicated to specific phases of the war, and so forth.


One field I've found to be severely lacking in good scholarship actually, is that of early aircraft history. There are absolute reams of stuff churned out by amateurs, of varying quality, but little in the way of peer reviewed/serious research. They're alright for technical specs, but you won't get much beyond that.

 Ketara wrote:

One field I've found to be severely lacking in good scholarship actually, is that of early aircraft history. There are absolute reams of stuff churned out by amateurs, of varying quality, but little in the way of peer reviewed/serious research. They're alright for technical specs, but you won't get much beyond that.

Funny enough, that's actually what I'm researching for a dissertation at the moment. One particularly good (and recent) book I've found is James Pugh's 'The Royal Flying Corps and Command of the Air, 1914-1918'. It came out this year, and takes a pretty interesting view of the early history of the RFC, particularly that their early war and pre-war development basically set the dynamic for their future operations, and that their doctrine early on was very much ahead of its time and ahead of the technology, whereas a lot of older literature likes to suggest they're playing catch-up throughout the war.

It's very much in the revisionist school rather than the 'Lions and Donkeys' one, but that's no bad thing as far as I'm concerned, I actually find the revisionists to be far more objectively critical than the traditionalist school that I think was a product of its social and cultural zeitgeist as much as a desire to produce good history. The traditionalists are far too concerned with finding someone to blame rather than critically examining what (if anything) was done poorly.

Taking a slightly different tack, the Official Histories of the Royal Flying Corps, they're a little dry and times and light on analysis, heavy on narrative, but if you want to chart the evolution of early British military aviation they're a decent source to lend context to/springboard into other stuff. All free online on places like Archive.org, and have a fair amount of original source material reproduced in them as well.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

One field I've found to be severely lacking in good scholarship actually, is that of early aircraft history. There are absolute reams of stuff churned out by amateurs, of varying quality, but little in the way of peer reviewed/serious research. They're alright for technical specs, but you won't get much beyond that.

Funny enough, that's actually what I'm researching for a dissertation at the moment. One particularly good (and recent) book I've found is James Pugh's 'The Royal Flying Corps and Command of the Air, 1914-1918'. It came out this year, and takes a pretty interesting view of the early history of the RFC, particularly that their early war and pre-war development basically set the dynamic for their future operations, and that their doctrine early on was very much ahead of its time and ahead of the technology, whereas a lot of older literature likes to suggest they're playing catch-up throughout the war.

It's very much in the revisionist school rather than the 'Lions and Donkeys' one, but that's no bad thing as far as I'm concerned, I actually find the revisionists to be far more objectively critical than the traditionalist school that I think was a product of its social and cultural zeitgeist as much as a desire to produce good history. The traditionalists are far too concerned with finding someone to blame rather than critically examining what (if anything) was done poorly.

Taking a slightly different tack, the Official Histories of the Royal Flying Corps, they're a little dry and times and light on analysis, heavy on narrative, but if you want to chart the evolution of early British military aviation they're a decent source to lend context to/springboard into other stuff. All free online on places like Archive.org, and have a fair amount of original source material reproduced in them as well.

I've haven't yet read Pugh's work, but I'm specifically talking pre-RFC. Back in the days of the early Army/Navy end of things.I can cite precisely three books worth a damn (Gollin's 'No Longer an Island', Driver's 'Birth of Military Aviation', and Percy Walker's 'Early Aviation'), and not one of them even really touches upon Admiralty policy or procurement (which was far more extensive than the Army's interest at that time). Edgerton did a book on early aircraft, but his is more of a polemical work. Does Pugh's work change that, or just carry on ignoring it?

Ah, I see what you mean. Pugh does have a chapter on 1911-14, the army manoeuvres where the British first experiment with aviation and the early thinking behind it, but I don't think he touches the navy side of things at all, as the book is specifically about the RFC rather than the Naval Wing/RNAS.

He does have a decent chapter in the collection 'A Military Transformed: Adaptation and Innovation in the British Military 1792-1945' comparing Naval and Military air doctrine from 1912-14, but that's the only pre-war/naval stuff I've come across thus far.

Yeah, I own that particular chapter/book, but Pugh is more or less retreading the one same small piece of ground everyone else does in it.

Kudos to you on having picked that one up though. The Wolverhampton series isn't exactly well known.

I'm afraid have to disappoint you there, I don't own the book, I just got given that chapter as reading for a lecture a few months ago!