History questions not worth their own thread II
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
- Status
LightSpectra
me autem minui
I dislike the name "Hundred Years' War," because (a) it was not a hundred years long, (b) it was not a single conflict but a collection of wars that are grouped together for convenience's sake because of a supposed single long term goal in the aforementioned wars; except for the problem that (c) the long-term military goals of both France and England changed over the course of the 14th and 15th centuries.
Racsoviale
Smoke me a kipper!
I find this name to be the most badass name for a conflict:
The Great Northern Biker War
You get images of Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and Finnsh Mad Max gangs thundering around in the cold wastelands of a post apocalyptic Scandinavia. But in reality it was a gang fight between Bandidos and Hells Angels about who was to control the drug trade in Scandinavia.
Sometimes a name can be very missleading and dissappointing too.
The Great Northern Biker War
You get images of Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and Finnsh Mad Max gangs thundering around in the cold wastelands of a post apocalyptic Scandinavia. But in reality it was a gang fight between Bandidos and Hells Angels about who was to control the drug trade in Scandinavia.
Sometimes a name can be very missleading and dissappointing too.
Well, you must also consider that the two main combatants had a red rose and a white rose as their symbol. It was a pretty fitting name.
Better than silly names like "La Violencia". I mean, that can describe just about ANY war.
Mad Man
Your lord and master
Was there any battles in WWII where Polish forces exclusively fought Hungarian or Romanian forces?
There were a couple of occasions in which Poles exclusively fought Slovaks, but I don't know of any battles with purely Hungarian or Romanian forces. I doubt it, especially the latter.
At the time of the invaison Poland and Romania were at peace. Some Poles even escaped through Romania.
If Polish forces fought Romanian troops, it would have been the Communist Polish forces under the Soviets.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Purely out of curiosity: I wonder if there's a list anywhere that documents people critical to both world wars (not counting the Soviet wars that were contemporaneous to WWI). Off of the top of my head, the only figures I can think of are Churchill, Pétain and Smuts.
Aquila SPQR
King
Romania was some sort of an ally then, and with Hungarians... well, that's a completely different story
Hungarians and Poles are... well, friends with a long tradition. Just before war Hungarians were allies with Germans but clearly stated that they won't allow Germans to attack us via their territory. They also placed explosives in their tunnels leading to Poland and were ready to blow them if necessary. After defeat Hungary accepted many our refugees and trated them extremely well.
During Warsaw Uprising Hungarian forces were relocated to the vincinity of Warsaw. Germans knew they cannot trust them but also knew that they still could secure transports etc. There are people who still remember sad Hungarian troops marching on Warsaw. If I recall correctly for some time they also had an order which clearly stated that they can't attack Poles in any circumstances.
After the war, in 1956, after all those events in Budapest Poles were massively donating blood and sent to Hungary 44 tonnes of various medicaments etc.
So no, as far as I know there were no battles between Poles and Hungarians or Romanians.
Hungarians and Poles were great buddies because they both were interested in carving up Czechoslovakia.
Romanians and Poles don't have such a great history. The reason Jan Sobieski did his level best to get to Vienna in 1683 was so he'd have the opportunity to conquer the Danubian Principalities. In one of those episodes in Polish history that is commonly glossed over, he failed rather disastrously, while the Habsburgs were in the middle of hammering their way down the Danube.
Romanians and Poles don't have such a great history. The reason Jan Sobieski did his level best to get to Vienna in 1683 was so he'd have the opportunity to conquer the Danubian Principalities. In one of those episodes in Polish history that is commonly glossed over, he failed rather disastrously, while the Habsburgs were in the middle of hammering their way down the Danube.
Aquila SPQR
King
If we consider overall situation then it was not a big suprise. We could compare it to... let me see... German ardennes offensive in 1944?
Franklin Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of Navy at this time. He met Churchill for the first time inspecting allied naval facilities in Europe. I wouldn't call him critical in the sense of securing victory, but he was certainly moderately important.
Georing was fairly famous as an air ace in World War I, but not sure if that counts, especially considering about so many of the future leaders of Europe at least fought.
Aquila SPQR:
Uh, no, we couldn't. Nazi Germany was fighting basically every other country in the world. It was numerically dwarfed on both fronts.
The Ottoman Empire in the late 1680s was in the midst of several revolutions, with military command and control rapidly changing from year to year, and with a colossal rivalry between Anatolian and Syrian commanders on the one side (in general) against the more prominent European generals. If the Polish military was "so awesome" that it "saved" Vienna in 1683, how come the Austrians beat the living crap out of the Ottoman military in the 1680s and 1690s while the Poles made exactly zero headway against the Turks in the same period?
Uh, no, we couldn't. Nazi Germany was fighting basically every other country in the world. It was numerically dwarfed on both fronts.
The Ottoman Empire in the late 1680s was in the midst of several revolutions, with military command and control rapidly changing from year to year, and with a colossal rivalry between Anatolian and Syrian commanders on the one side (in general) against the more prominent European generals. If the Polish military was "so awesome" that it "saved" Vienna in 1683, how come the Austrians beat the living crap out of the Ottoman military in the 1680s and 1690s while the Poles made exactly zero headway against the Turks in the same period?
LightSpectra
me autem minui
I don't know any historians that would say that Jan III didn't save the day at Vienna. The Polish forces constituted half of the coalition, and the left (?) flank of the Turks were subdued entirely by Jan's forces.
Why Polish luck ran dry after that: I don't know. Could be anything military/economic exhaustion (Jan brought almost every single unit he could to Vienna in 1683; had Russia or Sweden decided to invade at that point, there's nothing Jan could've done) to simply the Habsburgs having more forces to devote at that time.
I'm sure Kara Mustafa Pasha could have succeeded in failing just fine without the Poles. He chose not to bring heavy artillery which would have been capable of breaching Vienna's wall leaving that behind in like Belgrade or somewhere, instead he only had light artillery with him, which while they increased the mobility of his army were not quite cut out for the job. And then there was the disagreement with the Crimean cavalry, when the flank was being rolled up Kara Mustafa Pasha could have called on Giray for aid but chose not to because...well he didn't really get along with those fellows.
That was my thinking too. It's possible that Polish volunteer troops fought Romanians or Hungarians on the Eastern Front, but I don't know of any such battles taking place.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
To be fair, the mine that would've destroyed the wall had its fuse put out literally seconds before its detonation in true Hollywood fashion; to say nothing of the fact that the Austrian diggers came across it at the right moment. It was a stroke of blind luck that the Turks lost the battle.
- Status
Similar threads
