History questions not worth their own thread IV

[History buff33]

Greatest contribution Germany gave to the world ?

 

[Dachs]

Also John Davies in Hanes Cyrmu says that Roman-Style Villa owners "Introduced capitalist farming" to Britain. Anyone have any idea what that means and if there's any truth to it? I don't trust his judgement on Roman affairs.

What is "capitalist farming" and where can I get some?

 

[Flying Pig]

I think he means industrial-scale for-profit farming, with landowners having hundreds or thousands of slaves to work their land, as in the great farms of Italy and North Africa, rather than subsistence farming as Britain had previously known. 'Capitalist' is a poor term because it implies waged labour, which as far as I know was not really used in the Roman latifundia, which were worked by slaves.

 

[ParkCungHee]

What is "capitalist farming" and where can I get some?

I have no idea. I was actually hoping you knew.

I think he means industrial-scale for-profit farming, with landowners having hundreds or thousands of slaves to work their land, as in the great farms of Italy and North Africa, rather than subsistence farming as Britain had previously known. 'Capitalist' is a poor term because it implies waged labour, which as far as I know was not really used in the Roman latifundia, which were worked by slaves.

Interesting.

 

[Tee Kay]

Don't you just love the bullcrapability of the English language.

 

[History_Buff]

Am I correct in thinking that in the big 3 France-Germany conflicts, there were no real attempts to assault each other across the southern section of their mutual border? Is the terrain there just too suited to defensive actions, what with the highland structure and the Rhine stuck in the middle?

Without knowing much about the terrain in the area, it seems odd that at least the three German invasions were all focused further North, around the Metz-Luxembourg-Belgium zone.

 

[Flying Pig]

The French thrusted into Alsace-Lorraine during the opening moves of 1914, but the Germans defeated them, I think.

 

[Glassfan]

The French thrusted into Alsace-Lorraine during the opening moves of 1914, but the Germans defeated them, I think.

The infamous Plan 17. Cut to pieces by German machine guns. Eventually outflanked by German forces in the North.

Spoiler :

Battle of the Frontiers
The Battle of the Frontiers consisted of five offensives, commanded and planned by French Commander-in-Chief Joseph Joffre and German Chief-of-Staff Helmuth von Moltke. It was fought in August 1914. These five offensives, Mulhouse, Lorraine, Ardennes, Charleroi, and Mons, were launched almost simultaneously. They were the result of the French XVII and the German plans colliding. The Battle of Mulhouse, on August 7–10, 1914, was envisioned by Joffre to anchor the French recapture of Alsace, but resulted in Joffre holding General Louis Bonneau responsible for its failure and replacing him with General Paul Pau. The Battle of Lorraine, August 14–25, was an indecisive French invasion of that region by General Pau and his 'Army of Alsace'. The Battle of the Ardennes, fought between August 21 and 23 in the Ardennes forests, was sparked by unsuspecting French and German forces meeting, and resulted in a French defeat, forfeiting to the Germans a source of iron-ore. The Battle of Charleroi, which started on August 20 and ended on August 23, was a key battle on the Western Front, and a German victory. General Charles Lanrezac's retreat probably saved the French Army, but Joffre blamed him for the failure of Plan XVII, even though the withdrawal had been permitted. -wiki quicki

Dachs is the expert on this. He'll show up soon I'm sure.

 

[sydhe]

You can get into candidates such as Pepi II, Taejo, and Drest I with claimed extraordinarily long reigns and lives, but I would lean towards them being overstated and would guess that 100 years old is hard to beat

It beats Pepi II, since the claim for him was 94 or 95.

 

[sydhe]

Am I correct in thinking that in the big 3 France-Germany conflicts, there were no real attempts to assault each other across the southern section of their mutual border? Is the terrain there just too suited to defensive actions, what with the highland structure and the Rhine stuck in the middle?

Without knowing much about the terrain in the area, it seems odd that at least the three German invasions were all focused further North, around the Metz-Luxembourg-Belgium zone.

The Franco-Prussian war did get into Northern Alsace, which is where Wissembourg is located, and there was a six-week siege of Strasbourg. If I remember my historical maps, the Prussian army came down the west side of the Rhine rather than crossing the river from Baden.

 

[Flying Pig]

Dachs is the expert on this everything. He'll show up soon I'm sure.

Amended for accuracy.

 

[Glassfan]

Amended for accuracy.

Chuckle

 

[Domen]

the Roman latifundia, which were worked by slaves.

Later on by colons. A step forward on the road of progress from slavery to feudalism:

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Colonatus

 

[Traitorfish]

Later on by colons. A step forward on the road of progress from slavery to feudalism

Still haven't purged that stuff from the Polish curriculum, huh?

 

[History_Buff]

The infamous Plan 17. Cut to pieces by German machine guns. Eventually outflanked by German forces in the North.

Dachs is the expert on this. He'll show up soon I'm sure.

Was there ever any attempt to try it again though? It seems to me that even slightly broken terrain would be superior to the types of attacks happening in the Northern sector.

I suppose there would be a lot of logistical concerns though, given that the British wouldn't have had any infrastructure in the area, making it an all-French operation. And as I recall a lot of the attacks up North were focused on securing more defensive positions that had been snapped up by the Germans during the race to the sea?

 

[Glassfan]

Was there ever any attempt to try it again though? It seems to me that even slightly broken terrain would be superior to the types of attacks happening in the Northern sector...

There was a fundamental misunderstanding on both sides of the front concerning the state of weapons technology and it's implications for the field of battle. Once battle lines were established, defensive firepower superiority, particularly heavy machine guns and massed artillery (barbed wire, etc.) so far outstripped the offense that multiple attempts by both sides to seize the initiative resulted in a unbroken string of massacres and defeat.

Other forces came into play later to change things - attrition, uprising, Americans.

 

[Domen]

Still haven't purged that stuff from the Polish curriculum, huh?

This my personal view not any "Polish curriculum".

Is Communism "Scottish curriculum" just because you are its follower ??? I don't think you are relevant enough to call your views "views of all of Scotland."

And by the way what is supposedly to be purged here?

Feudalism was much better than slavery. What should be purged is the myth that Medieval peasant had similar situation and status to slave everywhere in Europe except of Russia (where it really was the case - but only in High and Late Medieval, not in times of the Kievan Rus).

 

[Flying Pig]

He means the Polish national curriculum; the content that is taught in schools. What you were putting forward seems to be quite a Whiggish view of history, and what I would have recently called a Marxist one - I'm afraid I owe TF an apology over that; Marxism talks more of tendencies than inevitabilities: slavery tends to evolve into feudalism, but the only sure thing is that it will eventually, as with any system based on conflict, collapse and be replaced by something else.

Feudalism was much better than slavery. What should be purged is the myth that Medieval peasant had similar situation and status to slave everywhere in Europe except of Russia (where it really was the case - but only in High and Late Medieval, not in times of the Kievan Rus).

'Feudalism' is a term which should be used very cautiously; it's extremely doubtful whether 'the feudal system' was ever anything more than an academic construct. There's a good WH thread about this somewhere; I think LightSpectra wrote it.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Later on by colons. A step forward on the road of progress from slavery to feudalism:

Explanation

Please don't use feudalism, especially with some kind of implied progress from one system to another.

Although slavery did decline in Italy. I could speculate on the reasons, but the diminution of conquering wars combined with Christianization of the Empire (which didn't prevent slavery, but certainly made it less convenient to have Christian slaves) probably had a lot to do with it.

 

[History_Buff]

There was a fundamental misunderstanding on both sides of the front concerning the state of weapons technology and it's implications for the field of battle. Once battle lines were established, defensive firepower superiority, particularly heavy machine guns and massed artillery (barbed wire, etc.) so far outstripped the offense that multiple attempts by both sides to seize the initiative resulted in a unbroken string of massacres and defeat.

Yeah, I suspected that a lack of comprehension about battlefield conditions, and lack of ideas on what to do about it might be the answer in the end. Especially since by the latter half of 1917 both sides seemed to be figuring out how to make at least limited gains without the massed attacks common in the first half of the war.