History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
- Status
I wouldn't say that guts have much to do with it; I would have been rather unimpressed to see any general I've ever served under anywhere near a contact with the enemy. Indeed, hands-on leadership was one of the great weaknesses of ancient armies. Alexander was lucky or talented enough to get away with it, but Emperor Valens of Rome once memorably decided to take personal charge of an army to head off a Gothic incursion over the Danube, which resulted in the worst defeat in Roman history.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Also, the distance generals are from a battle necessarily had to be smaller before real time audio visual communication.
Armies need commanders. And it would make the most sense to find such commanders by looking at the family that bases its right to rule its kingdom on its military prowess. Kings derived a big chunk of their ideological legitimacy from their claims to be the greatest warriors and generals. At the same time, they were afforded a lot of opportunity to develop military competency due to wealth and experience.
It seems to me that there's a bit of a double standard, there: a defeat suffered by a leader who happens to also be a king in his spare time is treated as an indictment of kingly military leadership in general, whereas a defeat suffered by a leader who happens to be a nobleman (or a businessman or a career soldier or whatever) in his spare time is not treated as an indictment of aristocratic/plutocratic/professional military leadership in general. Some kings were good at leading men, some kings were bad at leading men, and luck was unevenly distributed between the two groups. They certainly had as high a likelihood of being good leaders as career soldiers did all the way up to the late nineteenth century, especially considering how little merit had to do with promotions up to that point over pretty much the entire world.
On a related note, Valens was not an incompetent military leader by any stretch of the imagination. He had spent the decade before the Adrianopolis campaign personally commanding the army that beat the crap out of his northern neighbors; the arrival of the Tervingi and Greuthungi coincided with an imperial jaunt out to Syria to plan a campaign against Sasanian Iran. It was perfectly normal and plausible for him to lead the army that marched out to do battle with Fritigern and his forces; leaving the job to anyone else might in fact have been a worse decision, because it would have meant abdicating the personal prestige that warmaking brought.
The Romans' defeat at Adrianopolis is difficult to untangle, because Ammianus Marcellinus is about as non-neutral a source for that engagement as one can get, and other period sources like orations and less-well-known historians contradict him in places. Plus, the battle narrative is kind of ridiculously stereotyped in a way that makes it unclear whether any of the details can be relied upon. But that's all window dressing; the fundamental issue is that battle was a lottery, and even an army with loads and loads of inbuilt advantages, like the Roman army, could very plausibly lose every once in awhile. Haralabos Voulgaris doesn't win every one of his bets, either.
I'd also take issue with the description of the battle as Rome's worst defeat ever. That seems like a...substantial exaggeration. The Romans didn't suffer that many casualties, compared to catastrophes like Arausio or Cannae. They went on to win the war, as they often did. The Eastern Empire survived the death of Valens and his soldiers and indeed continued to survive and thrive for over a thousand more years. What criteria are you using for "worst", exactly? And how do they put Adrianopolis ahead of the likes of Cape Bon, Yarmouk, or the Fourth Crusade? I mean, sure, "worst" in this case is highly subjective, but one should at least have factually correct reasoning behind a subjective opinion.
Sometimes it worked well, though. Think of Heraclius. Perhaps if more battles were decided by single combat between the commanders, the world would be a better place...
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Then we'd see the world conquered by Russia, Jordan, Nagorno-Karabakh, or Eritrea.
Not that I'd be opposed to Queen Consort Rania, mind you.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Unlikely, considering how some nations and by extent their commanders would still have significantly more powerful armed forces and thus have greater odds of winning. Case in point would be Afghanistan under Taliban rule - though do pretty well fending off the Americans. But it would still make them less inclined to go to war of course, unless they absolutely believed in it. Can you imagine one of the Bushes moving into Iraq?
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Plotinus was thinking of a system in which
Plotinus said:
, so the armed forces would be irrelevant, only the leaders' fighting prowess. Leaders like those of the countries I mentioned would have an edge. Can you imagine unarmed combat between, say, Vladimir Putin and Shinzo Abe over the Kuriles? It'd be quick.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Phrossack said:
What about Vitali Klitschko vs. Vladimir Putin over Ukraine and Russia (winner takes all) ??? It'd be really quick.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Bumped, because nobody has answered so far.
This is the exact supposed quotation from Heine that I've found:
"Nobody knows the Germans, the strength of savagery and inhumane pride hidden in this nation. This here German nation, when it becomes strong enough and when it achieves the state of full consciousness of itself - will pour out an ocean of blood and tears, going to cruelty of historically unknown magnitude."
- Heinrich Heine (1797 - 1856)
Quackers
The Frog
Heinrich nailed that.
I wonder how long we will have to wait for the next round? I don't have a lot of hope for Poland.
I wonder how long we will have to wait for the next round? I don't have a lot of hope for Poland.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
We survived 1100 years between Germany and Russia so I look forward to the next 1100 years with optimism.
Quackers
The Frog
I wouldn't want to just "survive" for 1100 years.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
And we didn't "just survive".
Today the numerical ratio of Germans to Poles is more favourable for us than ever before.
Current western border of Poland is also satisfactory for us. The same as 800 years ago.
Today the numerical ratio of Germans to Poles is more favourable for us than ever before.
Current western border of Poland is also satisfactory for us. The same as 800 years ago.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Do you not think that comparing ethnic populations and calling them "favourable" is a bit, y'know, um... Hitler? It's a bit Hitler. You sound like Hitler. These are Hitler things to say.
I'm sorry that there's no more subtle way to put that.
I'm sorry that there's no more subtle way to put that.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Depends how you define "ethnic". Ethnicity should not be defined by ancestry.
One of my grandfathers was Meller, his ancestors were so called Hollanders who settled in Poland in the 1700s.
Many Poles have German, Lithuanian, Ruthenian, Russian, Wallachian, Dutch, Scottish, Jewish, etc. ancestors.
One of my grandfathers was Meller, his ancestors were so called Hollanders who settled in Poland in the 1700s.
Many Poles have German, Lithuanian, Ruthenian, Russian, Wallachian, Dutch, Scottish, Jewish, etc. ancestors.
Quackers
The Frog
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
I wrote we didn't "just survive", but much more than this - in case if you misunderstood that.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Even Nazi historians wrote about Polonization of Germans throughout ages.
Of course they perceived that Polonization as something bad ("cultural degradation"), and advocated for Re-Germanization of "racially suitable elements".
An example of such a Nazi historian is Kurt Lück - who in 1934 published a book in which he wanted to prove that almost entire Poland was once inhabited by Germans (both towns and villages), but they were later Polonized by "evil Polish nobility". In one of his maps, Kurt Lück showed German settlement in Southern Poland (from the eastern border of Upper Silesia to Volhynia and Podolia), and he marked there villages and cities with Medieval German immigrants. He also painted a huge territory with yellow colour as "Verbreitungsgebiet" ("range of distribution") of Germans , which covered nearly entire region - from the easter border of Upper Silesia in the west to areas around Lviv in the east.
In that map Kurt Lück marked 123 cities and divided them to 5 groups (I called them A, B, C, D, E below), depending on when inhabitants of each city were Polonized:
Which translates:
Group "E" according to Kurt Lück, numbered just 11 cities (out of 123). In his map he also marked hundreds of villages in Southern Poland where Germans settled.
Still Kurt Lück was among those "better" Nazis, who advocated the Re-Germanization of Poles, rather than the extermination of this nation.
The reason why Kurt Lück advocated for Germanization and assimilation of conquered Poles, was his belief that many if not most of Poles were descendants of German Ostsiedlung immigrants, who settled in Poland during the Middle Ages and were later Polonized - "culturally humiliated" - by Polish nobles during the 1400s and the 1500s.
Kurt Lück thus considered the Polish people as "Aryans", but "depraved and demoralized Aryans". He also believed that some Poles had "strong admixture of Jewish or Russian subhuman blood" - and those were to be annihilated. Here is what German wikipedia today writes about this Nazi historian:
Which translates:
As you can see Kurt Lück did not consider Poles, many of whom had "German blood", as racially inferior - he considered them to be culturally inferior.
The Nazis also believed, that Poles had a strong admixture of "Jewish and Russian blood", which made some of them - but not all - racially inferior.
As for Kurt Lück - he devoted his entire life to fight against Polishness and Poland as a state.
In 1918 - 1919 he fought against Polish insurgents in Posener Aufstand as a German Freiwilliger, including the defence of Kolmar on 08.01.1919.
In 1922 he founded "Verein Deutscher Hochschüler" in Poland. After 1934 he was an important member of German minority in Greater Poland - chief of "Historischen Gesellschaft für Posen" and editor of "Deutschen Monatshefte in Polen" and member of "Nordostdeutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft".
He was arrested by Polish authorities before the war started in August 1939, but soon he was released. Then he volunteered to Volksdeutschen Selbstschutzes, which participated in persecutions of Polish population in occupied territories.
Then he became director of Gräberzentrale für die ermordeten Volksdeutschen, which was researching "Bromberger Blutsonntag" and similar cases.
In March 1940 he joined the SS (in rank of a captain) and in the Autumn of 1941 he joined the NSDAP (but he joined retrospectively - since December 1940). He participated in the action of repatriations of Germans from Eastern Europe into western parts of Poland annexed directly into the Reich in 1939.
After the outbreak of German-Soviet war in 1941 he volunteered to the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front (sic! - volunteered to the Eastern Front! - what a fanatic!).
In March 1942 he was killed by Soviet partisans.
Of course they perceived that Polonization as something bad ("cultural degradation"), and advocated for Re-Germanization of "racially suitable elements".
An example of such a Nazi historian is Kurt Lück - who in 1934 published a book in which he wanted to prove that almost entire Poland was once inhabited by Germans (both towns and villages), but they were later Polonized by "evil Polish nobility". In one of his maps, Kurt Lück showed German settlement in Southern Poland (from the eastern border of Upper Silesia to Volhynia and Podolia), and he marked there villages and cities with Medieval German immigrants. He also painted a huge territory with yellow colour as "Verbreitungsgebiet" ("range of distribution") of Germans , which covered nearly entire region - from the easter border of Upper Silesia in the west to areas around Lviv in the east.
In that map Kurt Lück marked 123 cities and divided them to 5 groups (I called them A, B, C, D, E below), depending on when inhabitants of each city were Polonized:
Which translates:
Group "E" according to Kurt Lück, numbered just 11 cities (out of 123). In his map he also marked hundreds of villages in Southern Poland where Germans settled.
Still Kurt Lück was among those "better" Nazis, who advocated the Re-Germanization of Poles, rather than the extermination of this nation.
The reason why Kurt Lück advocated for Germanization and assimilation of conquered Poles, was his belief that many if not most of Poles were descendants of German Ostsiedlung immigrants, who settled in Poland during the Middle Ages and were later Polonized - "culturally humiliated" - by Polish nobles during the 1400s and the 1500s.
Kurt Lück thus considered the Polish people as "Aryans", but "depraved and demoralized Aryans". He also believed that some Poles had "strong admixture of Jewish or Russian subhuman blood" - and those were to be annihilated. Here is what German wikipedia today writes about this Nazi historian:
Which translates:
As you can see Kurt Lück did not consider Poles, many of whom had "German blood", as racially inferior - he considered them to be culturally inferior.
The Nazis also believed, that Poles had a strong admixture of "Jewish and Russian blood", which made some of them - but not all - racially inferior.
As for Kurt Lück - he devoted his entire life to fight against Polishness and Poland as a state.
In 1918 - 1919 he fought against Polish insurgents in Posener Aufstand as a German Freiwilliger, including the defence of Kolmar on 08.01.1919.
In 1922 he founded "Verein Deutscher Hochschüler" in Poland. After 1934 he was an important member of German minority in Greater Poland - chief of "Historischen Gesellschaft für Posen" and editor of "Deutschen Monatshefte in Polen" and member of "Nordostdeutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft".
He was arrested by Polish authorities before the war started in August 1939, but soon he was released. Then he volunteered to Volksdeutschen Selbstschutzes, which participated in persecutions of Polish population in occupied territories.
Then he became director of Gräberzentrale für die ermordeten Volksdeutschen, which was researching "Bromberger Blutsonntag" and similar cases.
In March 1940 he joined the SS (in rank of a captain) and in the Autumn of 1941 he joined the NSDAP (but he joined retrospectively - since December 1940). He participated in the action of repatriations of Germans from Eastern Europe into western parts of Poland annexed directly into the Reich in 1939.
After the outbreak of German-Soviet war in 1941 he volunteered to the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front (sic! - volunteered to the Eastern Front! - what a fanatic!).
In March 1942 he was killed by Soviet partisans.
- Status
Similar threads
