History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

[History_Buff]

If Napoleon never attacked Russia, what could he have achieved? or was the end of his military grip over Europe forthcoming anyway?

Presumably shored up power on the continent while trying to further isolate Britain and Russia diplomatically. But that's not the kind of person that Napoleon was, nor would the rest of Europe just taken things lying down.

If Hitler invaded England during the early or middle stages of the aerial Battle of Britain instead of later turning his armies against the Soviet Union, could he have been successful? Would the RAF simply sink his transports prior to them arriving on British soil? would he have been able to take the whole island? Did he simply have to eventually invade the Soviets due to the need for their resources? Even if successful against England, Germany could've never conquered North America, later on, correct?

There is no plausible situation in which Sea Lion could possibly have succeeded. The Germans had no ability to get their forces across the English channel, and the plans they did have were laughably poor.

Contrast the slapdash preparations that would have been in place, to the attack that we know succeeded, Operation Overlord. Overlord took place after years of planning by the Allies, with massive industrial resources provided by the United States, enjoying air and naval superiority, along with a hefty element of surprise and support from airborne troops. While it was doubtful that the Germans could have successfully pushed them back with all those advantages, it was also very difficult for the Allied troops to breakout from their beachheads.

Did they both make a huge mistake, or had no other choice when they decided to turn away from plans of invading Britain and elected to have a go at the Russians instead?, both of them paid dearly for a similar decision.

Napoleon's invasion of Russia was probably a bad idea, but it was by no means a foregone conclusion that the invasion would fail. It was also not simply the Russian winter that did him in, but effective resistance from Russian forces, that at least forced Napoleon to retreat back along the same ground he had advanced through, denying them supplies during their withdrawal.

And while the Soviet Union would eventually play the largest hand in defeating Hitler, it's not exactly clear what other options are available to Germany in 1941. England is essentially unassailable, while the Germans are increasingly paranoid about growing Russian strengths. North Africa would be the likely place effort would be diverted to, but the limiting factor there for both sides was logistical capacity rather than volume of troops. And Germany can't afford to sit on her hands, as the Nazi economy was essentially a shambles.

 

[carmen510]

I'm looking for a list of purged Soviet military leaders (including major generals and above ranks, as well as equivalent ranks in the navy & air force) from 1936 to 1941 (does not have to include those purged in the aftermath of the Barbarossa invasion). Does anyone, by chance, have a link to such information or know a source for such information?

I actually did have a list of Russian military personnel similar to what I've described (in Russian), but I lost the link and can't find it despite searching my browsing history.

Please do not direct me to Wikipedia or generals.dk; I've already looked at those sources, and the latter doesn't include pre-WW2 personnel.

 

[Agent327]

The story of short reign of Emperor Majorian shows that the Western Roman Army was still perfectly able to defeat barbarians even after year 450 AD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorian

Map of Majorian's military campaigns:

Spoiler :

There was just too much internal chaos and too many intrigues (in which barbarians often played important roles) to consolidate the Western Empire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorian#Fall_and_death

Unfortunately, the repeated incursions and subsequent settlements increasingly reduced the West's tax base. This had two fatal consequences: there was less money to sustain the military (so the Western army grew progressively smaller) and its quality diminished accordingly. Effectively the West was in mortal danger with the loss of Africa to the Vandals, which again had two consequences: Rome lost its main grain supply and the largest tax base it still had left. Plans to reconquer Africa in a joint expedition with the East were thwarted by incursions in the East-controlled Balkan peninsula. After that it was just a matter of time til Italy also fell.

 

[History_Buff]

A big problem with the loss of Africa also meant that there had to be a significant military presence in Italy to deter or stop attacks. You also definitely need an army across the Alps, and wherever the Emperor isn't, the local aristocracy will be scheming to use the local army to get a more locally aligned Emperor on the throne. Very bad for political stability.

 

[daft]

Did a ruthlessly aggressive Assyrian Queen and ruler of ancient Assyria ever exist? Thought I heard about her somewhere, however, can't find any historical data, perhaps I've misheard.

 

[Ajidica]

Did a ruthlessly aggressive Assyrian Queen and ruler of ancient Assyria ever exist? Thought I heard about her somewhere, however, can't find any historical data, perhaps I've misheard.

Might you be thinking of Palmyra and Queen Zenobia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmyra

 

[sydhe]

He may be thinking of Semiramis, who is mostly legendary but based on a queen who was regent of Assyria. The historical queen was Sammu-ramat.

 

[Earthman]

On another forum I found interesting discussions about national identity (associating yourself with a particular nation) and ethnic consciousness (being aware that the language you speak is XYZ and that you belong to XYZ culture), etc., in the Middle Ages and later:

It started from discussing whether Austrians were Germans in the past, or not:

http://historum.com/european-histor...en-austria-germany-so-unpopular-nowadays.html

http://historum.com/european-history/74435-italy-civic-ethnic-nation-state-3.html#post1884627

Do you imply that nations don't exist without a state...? that's a very american historical point of view that doesn't fit in Europe, where people like Armenians, Jews, Greeks or even Irish(among others) dwell...

Personally I see the national identities of Spain and Germany much moe constructed from the Italian one, and the absence of an prevailing dynasty ruling all over Italy is an argument of a surely less artificial identity than the identiy of Spanish nation who you can say that the extent and meaning of this identity is a result of royal marriages..or today's Germany an outcome of successful Prussian generals...

Well, if he meant 1871, then it is definitely wrong, because the Austrian emperors still saw themselves as Germans and even the 1918 constitution of Austria called German-Austria a part of the German Republic.
An Austrian identity, as seperated ethnic group did simply not exist before 1945. It is the same in culture and religion etc. Of course does Germany have great protestant areas, but catholic areas, too. Mozart eg. saw himself as German. There is e.g. no Austrian language, but like in Germany several dialects. In western Austria e.g. the language is the same as in SW germany and Switzerland, Alemannic.

I think indeed, that after 1945 the Austrian elite had created an ethnic identity in Austria and different to Germany, were people accounted for the past, especially the Nazi-time, nationalism and even patriotism was very small and not PC, Austria invented these "first victim" ideology and never really accounted for the past. That's why nationalism is still so strong in Austria, just see the Haider party, FPÖ.

Austria is the old habsburg. And been around the past 1000 years or so, while germany as a country is about 150 years or so.

Germany as a national state with a federal structure was founded in 1871 but various German states existed already long before that. They were loosely united in the Holy Roman Empire before 1806, the German Bund "Federation/Confederation" from 1815 to 1866, the North German Bund from 1867 to 1871. The Term "Deutsch" (German) first originated at the end of the 9th century meaning "People" and referring to the language of the population.

I'm not sure about the perception by Austrians of their undoubted Germanness during the Habsburgs, I mean how they viewed the othr non German citizens of the Empire, or the Bavarians, the Silesians, or even the Dutch.

I mean did they see them as a Polish viewed a Russian and a Czech as fellow Slavs?

I'm not sure about the perception by Austrians of their undoubted Germanness during the Habsburgs, I mean how they viewed the othr non German citizens of the Empire, or the Bavarians, the Silesians, or even the Dutch.

That is really a difficult question, cos there are only a few clear statements and several others were it is not that clear. For example does the HRE has the additional nationis germanicae and this since the 15th century. I mentioned Mozart, who called germany his fatherland. During the humanism the old Roman scholars were discovered and tacitus with his Germania, there was nationalism in Poland and Bohemia, which influenced the perception of Germans. Austrians saw themselves first of all, as bavarians, Saxons etc, as Austrians or subjects of the Habsburgians and then as German people. But that shows, that people in Switzerland, Bohemia, the netherlands or Burgundy could saw themselves as Habsburg subjects, too, but not as Austrians and maybe sometimes as well not as Germans. Well, it's difficult. We had such discussion e.g. about Kopernikus, who never gave a statement whether he saw himself as German or Pole.

I mean did they see them as a Polish viewed a Russian and a Czech as fellow Slavs?

I don't think so. Probably more like a man from Kujavia sees a man from Masovia or Little Poland.

It would be interesting though to see sources of how they saw their fellow Germans(in cultural, linguistic etc sense).

Germans were to be found in big numbers and in big diaspora, from Alps and Lorraine to Baltic Sea and Transylvania and Ukraine. That they probably had also province identities it can be said certainly, I mean Bavarians with Otto in Greece were continuously called Bavarians and declared themselves as such. I haven't found references so far in some few memoirs of them about how they viewed other Germank speakers.

I remember the 1982 World Cup match between Germany and Austria in Gijon, where neither side tried very hard to win. After Germany scored a goal, for the rest of the match neither side tried to score, which ensured that both sides would progress to the next stage at the expense of Algeria.

Most observers thought that a deal had been made in advance between the German and Austrian teams not to score any further goals after the first one, to ensure that both teams would go through.

That is really a difficult question, cos there are only a few clear statements and several others were it is not that clear. For example does the HRE has the additional nationis germanicae and this since the 15th century. I mentioned Mozart, who called germany his fatherland. During the humanism the old Roman scholars were discovered and tacitus with his Germania, there was nationalism in Poland and Bohemia

Yes, it is a difficult question, but national identity or ethnic consciousness among Medieval people existed pretty much like it exists today, and not only among feudal elites, but also among the masses of population in general. A very good source showing how well-aware many Medieval people were of their nationality, as well as of politics and historical events, are for example documents from Polish-Teutonic trials, which contain over 200 testimonies of witnesses presented to the court over the course of 100 years of Polish-Teutonic trials (during the 1300s and the 1400s).

Check for example the article in the link below written by Dariusz von Guettner-Sporzyński:

"Memorialisation and historical awareness - witness testimonies in trials between Poland and the Teutonic Order in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries":

http://www.academia.edu/2579308/Mem...der_in_the_fourteenth_and_fifteenth_centuries

So the PC myth invented after 1989 that Polish-Teutonic wars were wars between dynasties rather than between nations, is wrong. Testimonies of people of all classes - from peasants to knights - confirm that Medieval people saw those wars as a struggle of nations. Also the old, common 19th - 20th century interpretation of the Hussite Wars as wars of Czechs versus Germans is quite correct. Not entirely, but quite. Just because some Germans fought for the Hussites and some Czechs fought for the Catholics, doesn't mean that the old interpretation is wrong. And then of course assimilation also played its role. For example Germanized Czechs fought on German, Bohemized Germans on Czech side, etc. But it's also not a reason to reject old interpretation, because as we know today, national identity is not determined by "blood", assimilation is important too. And some people can consider themselves as being both German and Polish or both Czech and German, etc. This is typical in mixed families or in borderlands.

In the battle of Grunwald in 1410 many Poles also fought for the Teutonic Order, as citizens of the Monastic Teutonic State. But according to historical sources some Polish units (mostly those consisting of Poles from Kulmerland) betrayed the TO during battle. After the battle of Grunwald, Jan Hus even wrote a letter to Polish King in which he wrote something like: "that battle was a great victory of Slavic people over Germans". So as you can see there was even some form of Medieval Pan-Slavic solidarity between Czechs and Poles, which encompassed also Lithuanians - who at that time didn't know that they were not Slavs but Balts, because the term "Balts" was for the first time used by linguists in the 1800s. In Medieval times Baltic-speakers and Slavic-speakers were both commonly classified as Slavic peoples, especially by Medieval Germanic historians who were not able to spot differences between those languages and ethnic groups.

Also Ancient Sarmatians and Scythians were considered by Medieval authors to be direct ancestors of Slavs, because the western border of Sarmatia according to Ancient historians was in territory of Poland. So when Polish-Lithuanian szlachta considered themselves "descendants of Sarmatians" (see: Sarmatism) it didn't mean that they considered themselves as Non-Slavic. Quite the contrary, they saw themselves as ancient indigenous population (not invaders) and as both Slavic and Sarmatian, because they considered Sarmatians to be Slavic. European Sarmatia, according to Ancient Greek and Roman maps, was the same area as Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, just 1500 years earlier. But in reality that region was inhabited by many tribes, even though it was named after Sarmatians.

What do you think about those points of view?

Was there ethnic awareness, national identities and ethnic or national conflicts back in the Middle Ages in Europe?

Was a typical Anglo-Saxon aware of being different than a typical Welsh (Welsh means "foreigner", IIRC)?

 

[Agent327]

Seeing as nations primarily refers to the 19th century concept of the same name, the answer should be no. (Natio in the medieval Latin sense has a slightly less flammable meaning.)

 

[Earthman]

Ok but is there any evidence that this concept is 19th century and not much older?

Well maybe before the 19th century the same concept was known under a different name - for example "race". Race became a biological concept in the 19th century, while before the 19th century it was like nation later (for example Martin Luther wrote about "Jewish race", "Slavic race", etc.).

In the 19th century those two terms changed their meaning. But concepts existed earlier.

 

[daft]

He may be thinking of Semiramis, who is mostly legendary but based on a queen who was regent of Assyria. The historical queen was Sammu-ramat.

that must be it, thanks!

 

[daft]

Did most of the plagues which devastated Europe throughout the medieval as well as later eras originate in Asia?

 

[Kyriakos]

Did most of the plagues which devastated Europe throughout the medieval as well as later eras originate in Asia?

"Ἀεὶ Λιβύη φέρει τί κακόν"
"Everything bad arrives always from Libya" (Africa).

Some ancient Greek saying

 

[daft]

you sure it's not ancient Egyptian?

 

[daft]

Are the ancient/classical kingdoms of Nubia and Numidia possibly worthy of being included in the game? Did Egypt rule Nubia most of the time, for how long a period of time was it an independent empire? Was Numidia ruled by Carthage and later Rome? was it ever independent?

 

[Tee Kay]

Perhaps Nubia more than Numidia, a long time including a period when Kushi'te kings actually ruled Egypt, and yes for about a century and a half.

 

[Plotinus]

Are the ancient/classical kingdoms of Nubia and Numidia possibly worthy of being included in the game? Did Egypt rule Nubia most of the time, for how long a period of time was it an independent empire? Was Numidia ruled by Carthage and later Rome? was it ever independent?

My African scenario featured the three early medieval Nubian kingdoms of Nobadia, Alodia, and Makuria. They were independent, though not of each other, and at least theoretically Christian. The "baqt" - a non-aggression treaty between Makuria and Muslim Egypt in the seventh century - guaranteed this independence for centuries, and is the source of our word "pact".

 

[Merkava120]

Is it a myth, or was Stalin actually convinced by one of his generals that horses were better than tanks?

 

[cybrxkhan]

Did most of the plagues which devastated Europe throughout the medieval as well as later eras originate in Asia?

The infamous Black Plague did, at least, I dunno about the other ones.

Are the ancient/classical kingdoms of Nubia and Numidia possibly worthy of being included in the game? Did Egypt rule Nubia most of the time, for how long a period of time was it an independent empire? Was Numidia ruled by Carthage and later Rome? was it ever independent?

Nubia was on and off independent of ancient Egypt for most of its early history, but other than some specialists its early history I believe is rather obscure. Eventually Nubia did conquer Egypt for a century or so, as TK said, from c. 750-650 BCE (I don't remember the exact dates) until it was driven out not by the native Egyptians, but the invading Assyrians. That said, Nubia, or Kush, rather, managed to survive as a reasonably strong kingdom - Alexander the Great and the Romans didn't conquer them, for instance - but eventually collapsed in the wake of the rising Axumite Kingdom (a proto-Ethiopia, I guess you can say). However, a few successor kingdoms arose from Kush, the three prominent ones being Alodia, Nobatia, and Makuria; not much is known about these, I think, the one most well-known would be Makuria. Anyways, these kingdoms survived into medieval times, particularly Makuria, which proved to be rather troublesome for the Arab Empire, enough that Makuria and the Caliphate negotiated a longstanding treaty of sorts known as the Baqt. Makuria began collapsing in the 14th century from civil war and foreign invasion, though it might've survived in some form or another into the 16th century or so.

Thus, regardless of whether or not you count Makuria as a late iteration of ancient Nubia/Kush, Nubia was a reasonably powerful, independent state that survived for quite a long time. Some people I suppose see Nubia as a pale imitation of Egypt, but that'd be like saying Japan is a pale imitation of China.

As for Numidia I believe they were independent for a while.



(Anyone else feel free to correct anything I said above, my knowledge on this is kind of hazy at the moment.)

 

[Domen]

Is it a myth, or was Stalin actually convinced by one of his generals that horses were better than tanks?

In some situations and some types of terrain, horses might be better than trucks. But tanks?