History questions not worth their own thread IV

[Louis XXIV]

It's an interesting theory. However, it's also noteworthy that these groups emerged from areas relatively isolated from western culture and often spread by the force of the state. Wahhabi Islam was backed by the Saudi royal family (or backed the Saudis) when they took over Arabia from Sharif Hussein. The Taliban as well also operated in a relatively isolated area away from both Kabul and Islamabad (or Karachi). I'm not saying the theory doesn't have merit, it's just worth considering it within the whole context.

 

[Masada]

Ok, good point. Still there is a disturbing correspondence about what those people want and what some western scholars say are the "natural characteristics of arab culture" when they attempt to explain the phenomenon. I fear some kind of feedback loop there.

Your going to have to elucidate further. Because I'm not entirely sure what "those people" want and even where I, which I'm not, I doubt those would line up all that well with the kinds of behaviors Western scholars have imputed to Arabs. Even had that been the case, there's no shortage of Arab literature which one can drawn on, quite apart from, what I imagine, has been mostly inaccessible Western academic literature.

Great post! What you said provides the grounds for some awesome future study IMO. Intellectual origins of Wahhabism and the current bent in rightist Islam could be a very fruitful field of study. I guess to analyze Lewis's role in this it would require a pretty comprehensive survey of what he's done.

I don't think Lewis was kicking around in the 1740s. Also, what the hell is "rightist Islam?"

The Taliban as well also operated in a relatively isolated area away from both Kabul and Islamabad (or Karachi).

The opposite occurred with the Taliban. It was radicalized from the outside via education in Pakistan. Pashtuns on the whole were fairly orthodox Sufis. Without the Soviet Invasion and the Civil War, there would not have been the scope in Pashtun society for a bunch of radicalized students - who among other things loathed lots of decidedly Pashtun pastimes e.g. kite flying and singing - to seize control. Had they tried at any other time, they probably would have been gunned down.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Is it apt to group Luther with guys such as Hus, Wycliffe, and Waldo in terms of their status as Christian theologians and/or heretics?

Why was Luther able to "succeed" when others (see above) failed?

What about the fact that he was a really good writer?

I haven't read anything by Wycliffe or Hus, but I can tell you that Luther is a vivid writer who gets his points across powerfully.

 

[Tee Kay]

I don't think Lewis was kicking around in the 1740s. Also, what the hell is "rightist Islam?"

Curiously enough this reminds me of something Lewis said on the absurdity of trying to characterise actors in the Lebanese Civil War as leftist or rightist.

 

[innonimatu]

Your going to have to elucidate further. Because I'm not entirely sure what "those people" want and even where I, which I'm not, I doubt those would line up all that well with the kinds of behaviors Western scholars have imputed to Arabs. Even had that been the case, there's no shortage of Arab literature which one can drawn on, quite apart from, what I imagine, has been mostly inaccessible Western academic literature.

I'll save us both a lot of typing and say that I don't know enough to elucidate anything on this. As I said, it is only a fear or mine. Possibly unjustified. The reasons why I feared that kind of feedback loop were the ones I already mentioned. It's not that western ideas about islam might have created wahhabism, for example, the roots of that are well known. It's that the western image of it may have contributed to spread it: the very condemnation of it "legitimizing" it as a way of differentiation for those seeking as much of a "non-western" identity as possible.

And I am aware of the irony in what I've said. This is more of what Edward Said would decry as orientalist: the supposition that the ideas of orientalists would be so string as to influence muslims in this way. Probably your doubts are correct, the sources of modern forms of radical islam are others and any effect of the image of islam in the west has little influence in all this.

 

[GamezRule]

At what time did the United States become truly capable to field an army equal to the armies fielded by the nations of Europe at the same time?

 

[Dachs]

At what time did the United States become truly capable to field an army equal to the armies fielded by the nations of Europe at the same time?

Define "equal to" and "truly capable".

I, personally, would answer 1780, although if you are liberal enough with the word "capable" you could stretch that back to 1775.

EDIT: Relevant quote:

Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

 

[GamezRule]

I'm talking in terms of organization, training, uniforms, equipment, other supplies, and the like. I wouldn't consider it to be any time during the Revolutionary War because, to my knowledge, most of the supplies/uniforms/weapons came from France, and the US did not have anything resembling an effective central government yet at the time. Also, during the time period you mentioned, most of the American force was ragtag militia. The US was not truly able to raise up a force equal to the British or French army, even if they are able to field similar numbers*. I'm quite certain that in 1812 the American force was still primarily militia, and once again the British were quite preoccupied when the war occurred, though I suppose that by 1812 Napoleon was also quite a bit busy having invaded Russia and all.

*Similar numbers taking into account that only a small portion of the European armies involved were actually fighting in the colonies.

tl;dr: I'm using a very conservative definition of capable.

 

[Quackers]

Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

Pfft, GB could one-nation USA back then.

 

[Dachs]

I would take your question to mean "at what point did the Americans field an army that was capable of defeating the armies of foreign powers", which they did successfully during the rebellion and again during the 1812 conflict. American forces won several engagements against European armies during the course of both of those conflicts, and in neither case were the Americans merely the sockpuppets of some foreign power. In some cases, the US Army accomplished missions that eminent contemporary European military authorities were convinced could not be done (e.g. Winfield Scott's Mexican campaign).

Have something else to chew on, though:

In any objective sense, the US Army was, in 1865, clearly the most powerful land fighting force in the world. It was larger than virtually all its contemporaries, had extensive recent combat experience against a legitimate and dangerous foe, employed a wide variety of modern weapons, had the best logistical support of probably any military in the history of the world up to that point, and was commanded by a collection of some of the finest officers in the military history of the nineteenth century. In the Appomattox and Carolina campaigns, the Army provided the closest things to "perfect" operations as can be found in the annals of contemporary warfare. Not even the North German armies of 1870 would have been able to best the Americans at that point (and those armies didn't exist yet, and lacked the experience of 1866 to properly reform their painfully weak artillery).

Pfft, GB could one-nation USA back then.

In the 1830s? This is the same army that barely captured Sevastopol over the course of two years in the face of extremely inadequate resistance after a fairly major and extensive reform program. Whereas the American military of the 1830s was enjoying decent leadership and excellent support, and would demonstrate itself, in the 1840s, to be extremely good at fighting Western-style armies as cadres around which volunteer units could form.

 

[Quackers]

I think your overestimating the power of the USA army. Lets consider that in the 1830s it hadn't encountered a European opponent full stop. All it had to deal with was nomadic native american tribes which did not have the best equpment nor tactics. It's impossible to tell whether these north american European tribes could even match the quality of native europeans

 

[Dachs]

I think your overestimating the power of the USA army. Lets consider that in the 1830s it hadn't encountered a European opponent full stop. All it had to deal with was nomadic native american tribes which did not have the best equpment nor tactics. It's impossible to tell whether these north american European tribes could even match the quality of native europeans

The US Army had, by the 1830s, successfully defeated the British army in one war outright, and in another war had fought it to an advantageous standstill, and from that point had not stopped improving. By comparison, the British army, apart from the Company's troops, had not been in a major engagement since Waterloo Peterloo and had atrophied significantly since then.

Fundamentally, if the British army was unequal to the task of conquering the United States in the 1770s and 1810s, when Britain was at its highest point of relative power by comparison with America, why would it have been able to do anything at all in the 1830s?

 

[Bowsling]

You should try telling that to our Ministry of Heritage.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

The US Army had, by the 1830s, successfully defeated the British army in one war outright, and in another war had fought it to an advantageous standstill, and from that point had not stopped improving. By comparison, the British army, apart from the Company's troops, had not been in a major engagement since Waterloo Peterloo and had atrophied significantly since then.

Fundamentally, if the British army was unequal to the task of conquering the United States in the 1770s and 1810s, when Britain was at its highest point of relative power by comparison with America, why would it have been able to do anything at all in the 1830s?

Neither you nor Lincoln are comparing like with like, which seems to be what the OP asked. The Americans had home field advantage in both wars you mentioned. If the games master grants the Americans a navy so that the two sides could fight on neutral ground, e.g. India, do you still think that the Americans would have won? The British Army in the 1830s was clearly no model of military efficiency, but British/East India Company soldiers did win a series of wars against societies that were more organized than the native Americans.

 

[Traitorfish]

Would it be worth adding that the Iroquois, Creek and Choctaw and were in no sense "nomadic"? A small point compared to claiming that two major wars did not occur, but it's pretty glaring none the less.

 

[Quackers]

Would it be worth adding that the Iroquois, Creek and Choctaw and were in no sense "nomadic"?

Nope, they all moved around.


..and Seek is right. I couldn't see America beating Britain in British territory. So it's a silly comparison to make. Lets see who would win a war in greenland between the two.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nope, they all moved around.

...What?

 

[Bowsling]

Would it be worth adding that the Iroquois, Creek and Choctaw and were in no sense "nomadic"? A small point compared to claiming that two major wars did not occur, but it's pretty glaring none the less.

The Cherokee are a better example, they had organized themselves into a nation-state on European standards until Old Hickory got in and went about doing what he did best - brutalizing the natives.

 

[Yui108]

The Americans had home field advantage in both wars you mentioned. If the games master grants the Americans a navy so that the two sides could fight on neutral ground, e.g. India, do you still think that the Americans would have won?

I have as big of a hard-on for alternate history as anyone on these boards, but what you seem to be saying here is

"If we removed some of the greatest advantages and strategic planning assumption the American military took into account, and then have the Americans and Generic European Opponent fight a war that could never ever never happen the Americans would lose.

Ipso facto, the American military was inferior to their European counterparts"

Which doesn't seem like a terribly interesting or meaningful historical proposition.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

I have as big of a hard-on for alternate history as anyone on these boards, but what you seem to be saying here is

"If we removed some of the greatest advantages and strategic planning assumption the American military took into account, and then have the Americans and Generic European Opponent fight a war that could never ever never happen the Americans would lose.

Ipso facto, the American military was inferior to their European counterparts"

Which doesn't seem like a terribly interesting or meaningful historical proposition.

I am an American and we kindly always sucked military wise. WW1 was nothing. WW2 we wasn't bad, but was more so due to our massive amounts of manpower and material. Korean War wasn't bad. We been down hill since Vietnam. We have the perseverance, just not the brains from a officer standpoint.