It rather depends on the situation I'd say, cavalry units still had their place in anti-partisan and similar operations for example, but you wouldn't want them on the front lines fighting regular army units.
That said I've never heard that particular claim, so it does sound fairly far fetched and begs the question that if Stalin was convinced at some point, he clearly changed his mind again since the Soviet Union wasn't exactly short of tanks during WW2...
What happened to the Great Library of Alexandria? I've heard that it was destroyed by the Muslims upon the conquest of Alexandria and while I am not an expert, generally the Muslims didn't go around sacking libraries on purpose, not like the emperor of Qin. Was it an accident that happened during the conquest of the city, was it destroyed by looting? Or is there another reason?
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.
Confusing... Let's try again. The medieval Latin word natio (being native of, lit. being born from) means something entirely different from the modern concept of nation, which is closely linked to the nation-state (19th century) and nationalism (19th century). So, the term may be similar, the concept is entirely different. So no, the concept is not much older. It's just what you are used to. If you lived in the 18th century however, nobody would know what you were talking about.
Race. I've never heard of Luther mentioning a Jewish race, Slavic race etc, but that's neither here nor there. Again, the modern concept of race is late 19th century and closely linked to the pseudoscience of eugenics (not the modern eugenics, which is an actual science) and ideas about social Darwinism. That's where we get our notions of a 'white' race, 'yellow' race etc. These aren't races, biologically. Scientifically there is no reason to distinguish between people with different skin pigmentation; the physiological differences are negligible. If you were colourblind you wouldn't even notice them.
It rather depends on the situation I'd say, cavalry units still had their place in anti-partisan and similar operations for example, but you wouldn't want them on the front lines fighting regular army units.
That said I've never heard that particular claim, so it does sound fairly far fetched and begs the question that if Stalin was convinced at some point, he clearly changed his mind again since the Soviet Union wasn't exactly short of tanks during WW2...
Horses are nice. They don't need oil, don't break down, and can cross difficult terrain like the cold muddy marshes of the Russian spring/autumn.
All the belligerents used horses, but especially the Germans due to their fuel issue. Cavalry can be useful in combat, just not (usually) for frontal assaults. The Soviets used them quite a bit for their mobility, supporting tank and mechanised forces. The Stalin thing was actually the other way around; Stalin wanted more cavalry, the generals weren't so keen. In the event, the USSR didn't have enough horses to field a large cavalry force anyway, while it had plenty of oil, and sense prevailed in the end.
What happened to the Great Library of Alexandria? I've heard that it was destroyed by the Muslims upon the conquest of Alexandria and while I am not an expert, generally the Muslims didn't go around sacking libraries on purpose, not like the emperor of Qin. Was it an accident that happened during the conquest of the city, was it destroyed by looting? Or is there another reason?
It seems the Library was destroyed or partially destroyed several times. One story involved Julius Caesar accidentally burning it down, another described a Christian mob destroying the library as a pagan thing, yet another attributed the destruction to Emperor Aurelian during a war with Palmyra. The Muslim thing is a can of worms due to the Islamophobia that's in fashion lately; ostensibly the Caliph had it destroyed for religious reasons. Given the trials that the Library went through previously, it might not have been the original Library or the Library of legend that was destroyed.
For the most part I agree, but there's a difference between thinking horses still had a role (which they clearly did) and thinking that they were a better thing to invest your resources and manpower in than tanks (which by WW2 they clearly weren't).
That's assuming its WW2 we're talking about since I can't find anything online about the myth in question.
I don't get how Russia didn't have the resources to field a large contiginent of cavalry considering that they had the Cossacks in imperial Russia? Or were the Cossacks just a myth?
I don't get how Russia didn't have the resources to field a large contiginent of cavalry considering that they had the Cossacks in imperial Russia? Or were the Cossacks just a myth?
I don't get how Russia didn't have the resources to field a large contiginent of cavalry considering that they had the Cossacks in imperial Russia? Or were the Cossacks just a myth?
It is all relative. Just think of the scale of a 19th century army compared to WWII.
During Napoleon's 1812 invasion of Russia, the Russian Empire fielded around a million men. And a little under 10% of the initial forces facing Napoleon were Cossacks.
In WWI, Russian mobilized around 12 million men with around 2 million dead and 4 million wounded.
In WWII, the Soviets mobilized 35 million men and Soviet military deaths are pegged at around 10 million (give or take a couple million).
And at the end of the Russian civil war, the Soviets had a policy of Decossackization deporting cossacks to various parts of the country to assimilate them or outright killing them.
In the 19th century, the Cossacks were heavily recruited and likely overrepresented in the Army (much like the British use of the "martial races" in India). By WWII with the general mobilization there are more men that need to be equipped and there is little racial preference. The sheer scale is mindboggling, 10 times as many Soviets died in WWII as were serving in the entire Russian Army in 1812 and roughly the same died died as served in the Russian Army during WWI. Equipping that many men with anything, especially with many major centres occupied, during such a short time is an accomplishment unto itself.
Even still, by the end of the war, as I recall, roughly 1 in 10 Russian divisions were Cossacks and they generally served as cavalry who could advance with the tanks and dismount to support them as infantry.
I think it is quite funny to accuse the country which in 1939 - 1941 had the largest tank force in the world - and here I might be wrong but it also seems that they had more tanks than all other countries combined - of underestimating the role of tanks, or of not investing in tanks.
Below is number of tanks + armored cars present in armored units of the Red Army on 1 January of each year:
But they do need water and forage. Moreover, they do need it all the time. And motor vehicles need oil only when you use them.
Horse-mounted units are cheaper to invest in, much cheaper to create. But at least equally, or more, expensive to maintain than motorized units.
That was the problem of the Polish Army before WW2 - not enough funds to motorize all of its cavalry, but maintaining it was also very expensive. On the other hand, infantry divisions need mobile units to support them, to cover their withdrawal, to protect flanks, etc. So cavalry could not be disbanded.
since the Soviet Union wasn't exactly short of tanks during WW2...
I have read first hand accounts written by Germans of rear echelon troops, support units etc being attacked by Russian cavalry in hit and run attacks. Even in the glory days of 1941 they seemed to be effective (and terrifying for the Germans).
As well as fodder and water, horses also need shelter from the elements. Napoleon lost a staggering number of horses in the first days of his invasion due to bad weather.
What happened to the Great Library of Alexandria? I've heard that it was destroyed by the Muslims upon the conquest of Alexandria and while I am not an expert, generally the Muslims didn't go around sacking libraries on purpose, not like the emperor of Qin. Was it an accident that happened during the conquest of the city, was it destroyed by looting? Or is there another reason?
Hm. Actually, the German army was far less mechanized as they'd liked it to be. As far as I understand fuel only became an issue later on in the war. (The Battle of the Bulge was, amongst other things, seriously hampered by lack of fuel for the tanks. But this was late 1944.)
I think it is quite funny to accuse the country which in 1939 - 1941 had the largest tank force in the world - and here I might be wrong but it also seems that they had more tanks than all other countries combined - of underestimating the role of tanks, or of not investing in tanks.
Below is number of tanks + armored cars present in armored units of the Red Army on 1 January of each year:
Or not. Check your manpower figures below: data for 1941 might actually show a relative decrease due to massive combat losses. What your graph doesn't show is that figures didn't continually rise, but were for a very large part replacements due to combat losses. After 1941 the manpower number stays more or less constant, but armour production went up continually (to about 40,000 tanks, if I remember correctly). Also, of course this would have been primarily new tanks and armour, as opposed to those in the pre-1942 figures.
What happened to the Great Library of Alexandria? I've heard that it was destroyed by the Muslims upon the conquest of Alexandria and while I am not an expert, generally the Muslims didn't go around sacking libraries on purpose, not like the emperor of Qin. Was it an accident that happened during the conquest of the city, was it destroyed by looting? Or is there another reason?
The simple truth of the matter is no-one knows. People sometimes forget that there doesn't have to be a straightforward reason for the loss of a huge number of texts such as this. Sometimes they just get lost because people didn't care to keep them. A good example is Origen of Alexandria, possibly the most prolific author in history, whose complete extant works now consist of a single major work in the original Greek and half a shelf of dodgy Latin translations. Not because of any great disaster, or attempt to suppress his views, but simply because people couldn't be arsed to keep on copying and keeping them. Or again consider Aristotle, 80% of whose works are lost. No doubt these works were in the Library of Alexandria, but they would have been in many other libraries or private collections too; but manuscripts are frail things and they just didn't survive antiquity.
Alexandria went through many traumatic events over the centuries that reduced it from the sole metropolis of the southeastern Mediterranean to a has-been town subject to the new capital of Cairo. No doubt the library just gradually fell into disrepair throughout that period and people weren't bothered enough to maintain and copy the texts, and so it withered away.
Sure. But my graph doesn't show the total number of produced tanks. It shows tanks existing at a given moment. From December 1941 to July 1943 number of tanks was increasing despite losses (i.e. more were delivered than lost). And I'm not sure what caused the decrease between July 1943 and January 1941 - maybe not only combat losses, but also other factors. For example maybe they stopped using some obsolete models of tanks. It would need to be checked.
Hm. Actually, the German army was far less mechanized as they'd liked it to be.
You might be surprised. Tanks designed in 1940 or earlier were quite common by the end of the war. While upgraded over their lives, the Panzer IV was in service prior to the invasion of Poland and the T-34 was in service in 1940. Both were used in combat well into the 1960s.
The British Valentine and Crusader tanks were in service in 1940 with the Churchill entering service in 1941. The Matilda II entered production in 1937 and was serving in the Pacific at the end of the war (and it was largely the same tank as produced in 1937).
Sure. But my graph doesn't show the total number of produced tanks. It shows tanks existing at a given moment. From December 1941 to July 1943 number of tanks was increasing despite losses (i.e. more were delivered than lost). And I'm not sure what caused the decrease between July 1943 and January 1941 - maybe not only combat losses, but also other factors. For example maybe they stopped using some obsolete models of tanks. It would need to be checked.
January 1941-July 1943, I'm sure is meant. Decrease in that period might partially be explained by the decision to move some 1,900 complete factories to the Urals. Mainly, however, the cause would have been the loss of the complete Western frontier armies plus the armies that were raised to replace them. Between the Battle for Moscow and the battle for Stalingrad there was no (succesful) major Red Army offensive. Again, this might at least partially be explained by a low in materiel.
That's what German propaganda would have you believe. One should keep in mind that German military planning did not expect a major war before 1942. So what plans for mechanization there were, were cut short by war happening much sooner than planned for. Germany didn't actually have any fully mechanized divisions - with the possible exception of SS divisions, but they didn't exist yet at the start of the war.
Of course some of those early versions were still in service in 1944, but majority at that time were new versions.
While upgraded over their lives, the Panzer IV was in service prior to the invasion of Poland and the T-34 was in service in 1940. Both were used in combat well into the 1960s.
An all-out invasion against a big country, aimed at its total destruction, is a major war. Especially if that country had explicit guarantees by two empires.
And then Germany invaded on land two empires - France in 1940, and the USSR in 1941 - respectively 2 and 1 year before they "expected a major war".
don't really want to make a new thread for this (though i will if people think i should), but i'm thinking of writing up an alternate history on another website for what would happen if genghis khan died when he attacked china (but assumed he lived through the assassination attempt at age 9, like in our timeline). i can post it when i get some of the work done, but i was wondering what you guys thought. i'll post some of my ideas, then you guys can discuss/refute them and add your own:
-relations improve between xia and jin dynasties, due to alliance formed to push back mongols
-but maybe they also hire mongol mercenaries
-more work done on great wall
-team up on song dynasty, maybe also on tibet
-baghdad doesn't get razed by mongols
-mongols probably try stuff again eventually
-other stuff i haven't thought of yet
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Moreover, they do need it all the time. And motor vehicles need oil only when you use them.
