• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VIII

Who knows? The oil embargo was very effectively strangling Japan, so why bother if they were about to fall from their own weight. Otoh by Pearl Harbor it was clear the US was on a warpath against Germany. If subsequently the US decided to go against the whole tripartite pact or Japan decided to be solidary with them, a direct war could have happened anyway which would have been incredibly different and probably quite shorter than OTL, with Japan's commitment north preventing them from pulling anything like they managed in December 1941, which was possibly the most complex coordinated offensive action ever pulled off in history.
 
...anything like they managed in December 1941, which was possibly the most complex coordinated offensive action ever pulled off in history.

I dare to say that the Operation Overlord eclipses it by order of magnitude, especially since you have to consider the amount of intelligence and logistical operations attached to it and vital to its success.
 
Do you think America would have attacked Japan if left unprovoked?
They could, if Japan joined the war against USSR it would be convenient moment.
Alternatively, they could greatly ramp up military help to the allies who did actual fighting.
 
My understanding is a war against Japan without Pearl Harbor would have been massively unpopular with the American people.
 
My understanding is a war against Japan without Pearl Harbor would have been massively unpopular with the American people.

I don't think that's true actually. From what I remember, by late '41, polls showed that the majority of Americans stated they would support war, both with Japan and Germany. It wouldn't have had the overwhelming support the war did after PH, but the Roosevelt administration had been heavily prepping the American public for the idea of war, and people did seem to be buying into it. That's not to say I think he was looking for a war with Japan, the US did really want Japan to back down and stop the war in China, but they were preparing for that not happening (Germany was a different story - Roosevelt was actively trying to get the US into the war on that side).
 
I dare to say that the Operation Overlord eclipses it by order of magnitude, especially since you have to consider the amount of intelligence and logistical operations attached to it and vital to its success.
I dare say coordinating two land invasions, at least three major amphibious landings, several bombing campaigns and the largest carrier-based air raid in history to all take place in the span of hours in the same day is a lot of complexity.

Overlord might have been a lot larger in scale as a single landing but this was incommensurably larger in scale geographically.

I think it's hard to say.
 
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
 
the first six months of the Japanese is one of the greatest military offensives ever , faciliated by a little of stuff and quite a bit of feeling racially superior . America would fight BOTH Germany and Japan and it merely underestimated the Japanese capability , with Mac Arthur waitng for them to strike Philippinnes easily taking the cake . Zero was nice but it didn't have everything in its way even in December 1941 . A more alert defence would still fail to defend the Philippinnes , some word hard to spell right but might have provided ample time for the Western destruction of the actually limited production facilities or something in the European colonies , say forcing a Japanese surrender in 1944 .
 
Hello folks,
quick question regarding languages and conquests. Let's take the Spanish conquest of the Americas as an example; when the Spanish landed, there is no way the Spaniards and natives could have communicated as they had zero knowledge of each other's languages. That said, before too long we know the two parties began to communicate and relay messages to each other quite quickly. My questions are: 1., how did they find common ground to communicate and how long did it take to "decode" each other's language and 2., which languages were preferred (those of the conquerers e.g. Spanish, later French/English or the many existing native languages and dialects?)

Kinds regards,
Ita Bear.
 
NativLang has a pretty good video about this:


Link to video.

The tl;dr is, a Franciscan friar spent time in captivity with an indigenous ruler in Yucatan prior to Cortez's arrival and had learned the local Mayan language; a chain of indigenous interpreters passing messages up and down allowed the Spanish to deal with indigenous leaders.

Interpreters are a very important in these sorts of cross-cultural encounters, but because they tended to be people of modest social status, their historical role tends to diminished, and historical records present Cortez parlaying with indigenous chiefs as if they were both speaking perfect court Castilian.
 
Last edited:
To be honest both the records of the time and the recent scholarly work has pointed out the importance of the interpreters, practical importance and as individuals, in the history of spanish conquests in the americas. What we know comes from the spanish records, there is a treasure trove of administrative paperwork and nearly contemporary histories and biographies to mine.

It is also interesting that portions of those records that had been dismissed by 19th and 20th century historians as probably exaggerations - such as the abominable scale of human sacrifices in Mesoamerica - have recently been proven totally correct by archeological finds!
It turns out that the [dutch and english] "black legend" against Spain was what had been distorting history in that instance. The conquistadores didn't do it alone, they had plenty of eager helpers who had reasons to hate the local empires, got benefits from the fight to end them and then held real power in the colonial structures.
 
In some civ's, saltpeter is represented as a mineral resource like iron or oil and you cannot build gunpowder units without the resource. In the US civil war, presumably one of the greatest needs for saltpeter, the supply of it is documented here, and can be summarised as scrape it from really dirty places like animal housing and streets, and start making it which is a bit like making compost. It is available as a mineral in a few places, but has the lack of access this ever prevented a military having gunpowder?
 
In some civ's, saltpeter is represented as a mineral resource like iron or oil and you cannot build gunpowder units without the resource. In the US civil war, presumably one of the greatest needs for saltpeter, the supply of it is documented here, and can be summarised as scrape it from really dirty places like animal housing and streets, and start making it which is a bit like making compost. It is available as a mineral in a few places, but has the lack of access this ever prevented a military having gunpowder?


Yes. This was true up until about WWI. When synthetics began to become available.

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/nitrate


Until 1914 natural nitrates were the most important source for the production of fertilizers and explosives. Beginning in 1883, the main nitrate reservoirs were controlled by Chile, which produced almost 80 percent of world nitrogen. The First World War spurred Germany to develop synthetic nitrogen, which ended Chile’s monopoly of world nitrates.


Nitrate Production in Latin America
Since the 19th century, nitrates have been used mainly to obtain the nitrogen required for fertilizer production and other chemical uses, particularly for explosives manufacturing. Natural nitrates were found on a scale that made their extraction commercially viable in only two parts of the world: Latin America and India. However, by 1918 Indian potassium nitrate represented less than 1 percent of total world exports of natural nitrate. Therefore, until the early 20th century, industrial processes depended almost exclusively on the natural reservoirs of sodium nitrate found in the coastal regions of what today is northern Chile.

Peru was one of the first producers of natural nitrate in the form of guano, exporting over 10 million tons between 1840 and 1870. Peruvian guano deposits were rapidly depleted due to its intense exploitation, making saltpeter the main source of natural nitrate between 1880 and 1920. The saltpeter deposits were concentrated in the Atacama Desert, then located in Peru’s Tarapacá region and the Bolivian coastal region of Antofagasta. The desert’s extremely arid climate provided ideal conditions for the formation of natural nitrate deposits. Peru and Bolivia’s efforts to control the British and Chilean companies that were mining the desert for nitrates resulted in the War of the Pacific (1879–1883), in which Chile defeated Peru and Bolivia, and annexed both of these nitrate-rich regions. In the 1890s Chile practically monopolized the production of natural nitrate, supplying almost four-fifths of the nitrogen used in the world. But by the turn of the century, Chile’s monopoly was eroded by new processes of synthetic nitrogen production. Still, in the absence of cost-efficient synthetic production methods, Chilean saltpeter still accounted for over 50 percent of the world’s production of nitrogen in 1913.

The First World War and the Nitrate Market
The First World War produced notable transformations on both the supply and demand side of the world nitrate market. On the demand side, perhaps the most obvious shift in nitrogen consumption was from agricultural uses towards large-scale production of powder and explosives. Before 1914, only one-fifth of all Chilean nitrate exports were consumed in the powder and explosives industry; almost four-fifths of all nitrate exports were used for military purposes thereafter. Great Britain, for example, stepped up production of powder and explosives from 50,000 tons in 1914 to over 1,860,000 tons in 1917. After a slump in the first years of the war, Chilean nitrate exports increased in 1916 to meet the war demands for explosives, surpassing pre-war export levels with a peak of almost 3 million tons.

The importance of sodium nitrate for the production of munitions and explosives transformed the transport routes for Chilean nitrate into battlefields. At the outbreak of the war, a German fleet stationed off the coast of Chile under Admiral Maximilian von Spee (1861–1914) interrupted the shipments of sodium nitrate. An English fleet under Admiral Sir Frederick Charles Doveton Sturdee (1859–1925) broke the blockade by sinking the German fleet on 8 December 1914, in the Battle of the Falkland Islands, thus resuming the exports of Chilean saltpeter. With the trade of saltpeter under British control, the markets for natural nitrate were substantially altered. A blockade against Germany closed what was, until 1914, the largest market of Chilean nitrate, and shifted the core of nitrate exports towards other European countries, Great Britain, and the United States. By the end of the war, the United States became the largest market for Chilean nitrate (see Table 1).


The exclusion of Germany from the natural nitrate market accelerated the industrial production of synthetic nitrate. Germany took advantage of technical processes developed by the country’s own scientists in the years leading up to the war. The crucial breakthrough came when Fritz Haber (1868–1934) developed the process of nitrogen fixation through ammonia in 1913, making large-scale production of synthetic nitrogen economically feasible. This process, combined with the method developed by Wilhelm Ostwald (1853–1932) for converting ammonia into nitric acid - the main ingredient for most explosives - freed Germany’s military industry from its dependence on Chilean nitrate. It has been said that, had it not been for the technical capacity to produce synthetic nitrogen, the shortage of munitions would have cost Germany the war by 1915.[2] Ultimately, the developments of the German chemical industry not only prolonged the war, but also transformed the world nitrogen market in the long run. Synthetic nitrates displaced Chilean saltpeter as the main source of nitrogen, thus paving the way for the end of the Latin American nitrate age.


Manuel Bastias Saavedra, Universidad Austral de Chile


What happened was that many places might have natural saltpeter in smaller amounts. The US did in the Appalachian mountains in the US Civil War. And so could make some gunpowder. But as mass warfare required ever larger quantities, shortages became a serious issue. And the processes for artificial supplies were late arriving. Until the demand was overwhelming. Before that guano, mainly from birds or bats, was the most common source of it. And those didn't always exist in large quantities, or in places where natural processes didn't wash it away. The Pacific coast of South America, for example, gets little rain. So guano piled up for ages without being washed into the sea. Caves protected supplies. But were naturally smaller.
 
Hello folks,

I'm interested in learning more about the spread of Latin during the Roman Empire's highpoint (0-150AD, or thereabouts). What percentage of provincials, people of Gaul, Hispania etc could speak Latin? Was it reserved purely for nobles, or did the common folk have a grasp also? If you have sources, I would love to see them.

Kind regards,
Ita Bear
 
Hello folks,

I'm interested in learning more about the spread of Latin during the Roman Empire's highpoint (0-150AD, or thereabouts). What percentage of provincials, people of Gaul, Hispania etc could speak Latin? Was it reserved purely for nobles, or did the common folk have a grasp also? If you have sources, I would love to see them.

I don't think you have much hope of getting a good answer for that.

I will point out that the first century must not have been the high point for latin use. At least outside Italy. Urbanization in Gaul and Hispania must have been still low, and the conquest of these territories was very recent. Roman merchants were found by Caesar during his conquest of Gaul, they had ran ahead of the conquest. But their numbers must have been small. Roman renegades were active in Hispania during the civil wars, but their influence past the southern areas is dubious. The north might as well be the ends of the world, interesting only for mineral resources.
There was also the opposite movement, inhabitants of those areas traveling into the Mediterranean controlled by Rome. Plenty of hispanics took part as mercenaries in Rome's war with the cartagians. Mostly but not exclusively on the cathagian side. And the gauls made some famous excursions into Roman territory :lol:

My answer is: I believe that during the first century the percentage who spoke latin was very small once one got some 40 km away from the shores of the Mediterranean or the navigable rivers. But it's very much a guess, based on the fact that acculturation is always a very long process. The second and third centuries (despite its civil wars) were probably the height of the empire in Gaul and Hispania, as in it had expanded its urban administrative network and was still stable. By the time the visigoths took over in the late 5th century the administration, including latin as the administrative language, was established strongly enough that they kept the whole local roman organization.

It would be interesting to compare, say, Britain with Hispania or Gaul. Why was latin discontinued in Britain, but not in Gaul or Hispania? Just the difference of a few decades of conquest, or a slightly earlier exit? Meaning more time for the "common people" to acculturare?
Or was it the wholesale evacuation of the roman administration from Britain the cause of this difference, whereas in the other provinces it retained some continuity? Meaning that latin's strength depended on its status s the language of the administrative class?
Hypothesis, very hard to ever prove or disprove.

It's worth keeping in mind also that the administrative class was the urban class, and that this was always small percentage of the total population of these provinces.
 
It is worth asking what you mean by 'speak Latin'.
Latin was the language of the army, so any soldier would know enough Latin at minimum to follow orders. Graffiti and curse tablets found along Hadrian's Wall show that a basic version of Latin was in pretty common use among the masses. Now, Hadrian's Wall was a sight of intense interest to the Roman state, but I think it can be reasonably assumed that after a couple decades under the Roman state most people would be able to speak a basic version of Latin. If you wanted to interact with the upper classes (such as selling wares in a market or working on a villa), being able to speak some Latin was beneficial.
Now, speaking good Latin, that's a different matter.* I doubt very many people outside of the aristocracy spoke good Latin. (Indeed, being able to speak good Latin was very much a sign of being in the aristocracy.)

EDIT: I don't have any specific sources, but I believe Guy Halsall does a good job on explaining the process of Romanization in Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West. It is several centuries after your period, but he should have some sources in it you can follow up.

*It calls to mind the scene from The Fifth Element "I only speak two languages, English and bad English."
 
Last edited:
Hello folks,
quick question regarding languages and conquests. Let's take the Spanish conquest of the Americas as an example; when the Spanish landed, there is no way the Spaniards and natives could have communicated as they had zero knowledge of each other's languages. That said, before too long we know the two parties began to communicate and relay messages to each other quite quickly. My questions are: 1., how did they find common ground to communicate and how long did it take to "decode" each other's language and 2., which languages were preferred (those of the conquerers e.g. Spanish, later French/English or the many existing native languages and dialects?)

Kinds regards,
Ita Bear.
Malinche served as Cortez's interpreter.
 
What was the point of D Day in world war 2?

Which is to say, the allies already had Italy. Why not just march straight through Italy into Germany? Sounds much simpler (not to mention less expensive) than establishing a beachhead in France.
 
What was the point of D Day in world war 2?

Which is to say, the allies already had Italy. Why not just march straight through Italy into Germany? Sounds much simpler (not to mention less expensive) than establishing a beachhead in France.


There ain't no such thing as the soft southern underbelly of Europe. The most defensible terrain to try to march an army through is mountains. Look at a terrain map of Europe.
 
IIRC some other variants were also considered - Churchill proposed landing in Greece, but in the end France was chosen.
 
Back
Top Bottom