History questions not worth their own thread

[BananaLee]

I am not too sure, but I suspect the usage of "minutes and seconds" derived from its original use for angles.
I suppose the link between astronomy, the belief that everything went in circles (or at least, the approximation that everything went in circles) and time was pretty clear to the man who invented the clock that went round and round.

Again, I could just be talking out of my arse, but yeah. Hahaha

 

[Steph]

Beside, at some points, the night was 12 hours and the day 12 hours, regarding of the time in the year, so with a hours of variable length

 

[LightSpectra]

If Henry VIII is King of England, France and Ireland, he is not the English King, who happens to rule these other territories, but very much the King of Ireland, the King of France, and the King of England combined in a single personage. So it would not do for them to be "The Austrian Emperor" (especially due to the international nature of European Monarchy) but "The Emperor of Austria." Nice and standardized that way also.

Yes, though Wilhelm took the title "German Emperor" as opposed to "Emperor of the Germans" or "Emperor of Germany," because it was felt at that time that "Germany" referred to every land that contained people that spoke Deutsch, not just the geographical territory that we recognize today as the FR of Germany.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I have heard it asserted that the Russian Empire in the First World War wasn't suffering from any economic crisis that the rest of the combatants weren't, but that its problems were mostly bureaucratic in nature. Stuff like, while all of the states involved were having shell shortages, the Germans, in their Gorlice-Tarnow offensive in 1915, captured a million (!) artillery shells stocked at the Russian fortress of Novogeorgievsk alone. Apparently there's an argument that a part of the Russian problem was that their economy was expanding, and that they were having a crisis of growth, and inefficient bureaucracy and poor resource allocation screwed them over. And to me, that kind of makes sense. The proximate cause of the February Revolution, the whole Petrograd bread riot and International Women's Day stuff, was going on in other states too. Germany was having its Turnip Winter at the same time, complete with demonstrations and so forth, but the Reich didn't collapse. (Yet.) And it's difficult to imagine that a Russian economy running at war production for four years (during which it was theoretically in a "crisis" of some kind) then underwent the dislocation associated with the implementation of war communism (insofar as war communism was actually implemented anyway) and sustained a revolutionary war for another five years.

But I'm sure there's ample evidence to the contrary. Anybody well up on this whole debate? If it's even a debate anymore, one way or the other?

One of the biggest problems was that the railroads were not maintained. By the end of 1916 something like 2/3 of rail engines were malfunctioning and out of service, for example. I don't remember why this was so, but I'm sure I could look it up for you if you like.

Because Russia is so huge, and its constituent parts produce different materials (Ukraine, for example, was essentially the breadbasket of European Russia, iron, coal et al almost came exclusively from the Urals, etc etc), the breakdown of the railroads amplified all these crises, especially in the northern cities, since the war effort got priority for those materials, including food.

 

[Yui108]

I've always been perplexed how nations can somehow motivate conscripted armies ,dragged from their homes to fight in a war, to fight properly in conflicts that are just explicit land grabs. It's a particularly poignant question before most nationalistic motivations. I'm mostly thinking here 18th century Europe.
Even in ultra-nationalist early 20th century Europe there were refusals to fight in WWI.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Dachs]

One of the biggest problems was that the railroads were not maintained. By the end of 1916 something like 2/3 of rail engines were malfunctioning and out of service, for example. I don't remember why this was so, but I'm sure I could look it up for you if you like.

Because Russia is so huge, and its constituent parts produce different materials (Ukraine, for example, was essentially the breadbasket of European Russia, iron, coal et al almost came exclusively from the Urals, etc etc), the breakdown of the railroads amplified all these crises, especially in the northern cities, since the war effort got priority for those materials, including food.

Thanks - I'm not really in need of any statistics, but I would like to know who was responsible for railroad operation in the First World War - the usual business owners cooperating with military liaisons, like the Federals in the ACW, full government control of the system as in contemporaneous Germany,

I've always been perplexed how nations can somehow motivate conscripted armies ,dragged from their homes to fight in a war, to fight properly in conflicts that are just explicit land grabs. It's a particularly poignant question before most nationalistic motivations. I'm mostly thinking here 18th century Europe.
Even in ultra-nationalist early 20th century Europe there were refusals to fight in WWI.

Thanks in advance.

The armies weren't mostly conscripted (save perhaps in Prussia, which had a heavily modified conscription system based on the "cantons", and the Swedish "indelning" system which was strikingly similar), they were usually professionals, but press-ganged and shanghaied ones. Desertion rates were ridiculously high. Motivation was the lash, and harsh discipline, and the horribly inadequate pay.

That's the short answer. The long answer involves a lot more nuance. Protonationalistic tendencies were already at work in Prussia during the Seven Years' War, and arguably in France and the Habsburg hereditary lands at around the same time. Conflicts weren't always "explicit land grabs" - usually both sides had a pretty good case for claiming that they were wronged somehow, and made extensive use of propaganda to show it, too. The problems of neutrality and the depredations of foreign military forces against civilians also helped to foster a general willingness to resist. Think Andreas Hofer against the French and Bavarians in the Tyrol in 1809.

 

[Padma]

When were seconds and minutes invented?
I think hours were invented long ago with those "sun clocks", they made half a circle and cut it to 6 parts, each representing an hour, but no way they also knew about minutes and seconds back then.

'Minutes" and 'seconds' were used by the Babylonians over 2000 years ago. They used a base-60 mathematical system for reasons I don't know (but probably had some ancient astronomical basis, e.g., the earth revolves around the sun in ~360 days, etc.). In any case, numbers like 6, 12, 30, 60, seemed as 'round' to them as 10, 100, 1000 seem to us.

Like many other ancients, they divided the 'day' into 12 parts (which varied in length as the year progressed), and then did the same for the 'night'. So a 'day' was 24 hours long. While for most people, and for many centuries after, the hour (sometimes divided in half, or even quarters) was granular enough, ancient scientists wanted something finer-tuned. So they divided the hour into 60 minutes, and then each minute into 60 seconds. (They did the same thing with geometry: 360 degrees in a circle, each degree divided into 60 minutes, which were divided into 60 seconds.)

Obviously, they didn't have terribly accurate timepieces, so it was probably more of an intellectual exercise for them. As mentioned, accuracy to the quarter-hour was more than enough for most people.

Hundreds of years ago, when what we think of as true 'clocks' were invented, they only used an hour hand. But that doesn't mean they didn't use minutes internally. People could estimate the time to the quarter-hour by just looking at the clock's one hand, which was sufficient for their purposes. No need to complicate the internal workings by adding gears and stuff to drive a minute hand, let alone a second hand. But science demanded ever-increasing accuracy for its measurements, and machinery became more capable, so 'top-of-the-line' timepieces soon got them. No need to invent new terms, or anything, since scientists, at least, had been aware of the Babyonian system all along.

That answer your question?

 

[Yui108]

Thanks - I'm not really in need of any statistics, but I would like to know who was responsible for railroad operation in the First World War - the usual business owners cooperating with military liaisons, like the Federals in the ACW, full government control of the system as in contemporaneous Germany,

The armies weren't mostly conscripted (save perhaps in Prussia, which had a heavily modified conscription system based on the "cantons", and the Swedish "indelning" system which was strikingly similar), they were usually professionals, but press-ganged and shanghaied ones. Desertion rates were ridiculously high. Motivation was the lash, and harsh discipline, and the horribly inadequate pay.

That's the short answer. The long answer involves a lot more nuance. Protonationalistic tendencies were already at work in Prussia during the Seven Years' War, and arguably in France and the Habsburg hereditary lands at around the same time. Conflicts weren't always "explicit land grabs" - usually both sides had a pretty good case for claiming that they were wronged somehow, and made extensive use of propaganda to show it, too. The problems of neutrality and the depredations of foreign military forces against civilians also helped to foster a general willingness to resist. Think Andreas Hofer against the French and Bavarians in the Tyrol in 1809.

Thank you very much Dachs, that was exactly the answer I was looking for.

And when I mentioned land grabs, I was sort of thinking something like the First Silesian War.

 

[Dachs]

Thank you very much Dachs, that was exactly the answer I was looking for.

And when I mentioned land grabs, I was sort of thinking something like the First Silesian War.

Rescuing the Protestants of Silesia from their oppressive Catholic overlords. That line actually worked in northern Silesia. Southern Silesia, which was majority Catholic...a bit more iffy about the whole thing. Fred had some problems down there in early 1741 trying to figure out where the hell von Neipperg's army was, not in the least because more than a few of the people there were trying to misdirect Prussian intelligence.

 

[mitsho]

'Minutes" and 'seconds' were used by the Babylonians over 2000 years ago. They used a base-60 mathematical system for reasons I don't know (but probably had some ancient astronomical basis, e.g., the earth revolves around the sun in ~360 days, etc.). In any case, numbers like 6, 12, 30, 60, seemed as 'round' to them as 10, 100, 1000 seem to us.

I've heard - but I cannot really confirm it - the following:

Our human hand has five fingers. If you count "manually" (literally) you count one hand at first, e.g. the right one. When this hand is full you "clear" the right hand and put up one finger of the left. That signifies 6. Then, one finger on the left and one on the right means 7. And so on. (Hope that isn't described too complicated).

This way you can easily count to thirty with two hands. The basis of the counting system is the 6 and the 6 intervall, it can easily be upgraded with other "counting measures" to reach much higher levels.

 

[Yui108]

I guess I'll bug you with one more question.

My teacher in history today was going on about how idiotic marching in formation towards each other with guns was in the European Style. I thought, I doubt she is smarter than several hundred years of generals, and I can think of some reasons why that style was adopted. It would be great if you could elaborate a little in order to help me make my point.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yes, though Wilhelm took the title "German Emperor" as opposed to "Emperor of the Germans" or "Emperor of Germany," because it was felt at that time that "Germany" referred to every land that contained people that spoke Deutsch, not just the geographical territory that we recognize today as the FR of Germany.

Exactly. And it doesn't do to have a geographically vague monarchical title, especially one that can be construed to be making a territorial claim on every nation in Europe. So "German Emperor" is the result of a very weird case.

 

[ParkCungHee]

My teacher in history today was going on about how idiotic marching in formation towards each other with guns was in the European Style. I thought, I doubt she is smarter than several hundred years of generals, and I can think of some reasons why that style was adopted. It would be great if you could elaborate a little in order to help me make my point.

You are very right to think that.
First, European Armies at the time were equipped with Muskets, which are not very accurate. The only way firearms were useful at the time was by massed volleys. With individual shots, there was no aiming really possible. But when you all got up in a line and fired, you could be fairly certain that everything in front of you would get hit. So firing turned into a test of who could load faster, and direct their fire better. People bunched up because the alternative was to get picked off piecemeal.
Second, into the Napoleonic era you had a bayonet on the end of your rifle for a reason. You could get of only a few shots every minute. Melee combat was still very real. And when you're all fighting with Bayonettes, it's very little different from fighting with spears. And as the Greeks and Romans taught us, that goes much better when you're bunched up.
Lastly, we see what happens when Armies stop bunching up. They lose. As unpleasant as not being able to move while being shot at is, the side that would break first and loosen their ranks would be cut to pieces by the Cavalry. Who now have room to use their maneuverability against you. You might get killed if you hold your ranks, but you certainly will once your ranks break.
So the old rule of warfare held: If something is stupid, but it works, it's not stupid.

 

[privatehudson]

I guess I'll bug you with one more question.

My teacher in history today was going on about how idiotic marching in formation towards each other with guns was in the European Style. I thought, I doubt she is smarter than several hundred years of generals, and I can think of some reasons why that style was adopted. It would be great if you could elaborate a little in order to help me make my point.

Well that rather depends on the situation being faced, and its worth pointing out that European armies did develop alternative methods and specialist troops on occasion who did not fight in that format. Generally though the firearms used by european armies were not accurate or rapid-firing enough to permit much else when it came to mass battles. Its pretty pointless trying to train every man in the army to skirmish with a musket when its generally a matter of luck if you hit anything over 100 metres away with one. Mass formations enabled troops to fire in a group making it much more likely that some shots would strike home.

Also in periods such as the Napoleonic Wars close formations such as line or column for infantry enabled troops to quickly deploy into square to provide protection from cavalry. If the latter caught skirmishers in the open with no accompanying troops the skirmishers were pretty much doomed. A lack of adequate instant communication also made it difficult to tell the position and situation of your troops if you could not actually see them.

I'm sure there's other reasons but that's some to start with.

 

[LightSpectra]

Mass formations enabled troops to fire in a group making it much more likely that some shots would strike home.

I never understood this point. If I fire at the same time as the guy to the left and right of me, my bullet isn't going to be more accurate; it'll only seem so because our targets will be stricken simultaneously. (I suppose that in itself is useful for not having your army get bored and dissipate, but that's beside the point.)

 

[privatehudson]

I never understood this point. If I fire at the same time as the guy to the left and right of me, my bullet isn't going to be more accurate; it'll only seem so because our targets will be stricken simultaneously. (I suppose that in itself is useful for not having your army get bored and dissipate, but that's beside the point.)

The general idea is that each man fires pretty much straight ahead rather than aiming at a specific target. If the whole formation fires at the same time and allowing for a percentage of misfires or badly aimed shots this can be pretty deadly since it allows a better chance that the enemy (especially one in a deep formation like a column where if a bullet misses the first man it is not necessarily wasted) will be hit than if each individual started to track a specific target. In the heat of a battle its much easier to train a man to fire straight ahead than to expect him to pick a target and make his colleagues aware of it.

There's also a certain amount of psychological value to firing in a volley. A targetted formation can shrug off the gradual loss of a man here and there (unless they happen to be NCO's or Officers) but it takes guts to step over the head of a column where every man in the first few ranks has been hit in the space of seconds.

 

[West 36]

What finally stopped arrows from being useful? Was it just armor? And when armor stopped being used again, with muskets and other inaccurate guns, what stopped them from being picked up once more?

 

[LightSpectra]

What finally stopped arrows from being useful? Was it just armor? And when armor stopped being used again, with muskets and other inaccurate guns, what stopped them from being picked up once more?

This I can answer. Longbows were actually more effective than the early riflemen in European history, though it took a great deal of training to be even sufficient at archery; whereas anybody could pick up a rifle from the get-go. It was far cheaper to exclude archers altogether.

 

[say1988]

Yep, quick and extremely cost effective (in terms of training).
Just like the pike, a group of men could be taken and given basic training in a very short period of time and become effective on the battlefield.

I never understood this point. If I fire at the same time as the guy to the left and right of me, my bullet isn't going to be more accurate; it'll only seem so because our targets will be stricken simultaneously. (I suppose that in itself is useful for not having your army get bored and dissipate, but that's beside the point.)

It also gave the officers more control. It was easier to shift focus, change formations, etc...
And never forget that many battles were decided by the charge. A spread out force charging you isn't going to have near the effect, and a spread out force will be much easier to break the formation of. And volley fire really shines here. When the enemy charges you, there is a hell of an impact when the first wave is destroyed in a few moments. This applies to both cavalry and infantry charges.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The general idea is that each man fires pretty much straight ahead rather than aiming at a specific target. If the whole formation fires at the same time and allowing for a percentage of misfires or badly aimed shots this can be pretty deadly since it allows a better chance that the enemy (especially one in a deep formation like a column where if a bullet misses the first man it is not necessarily wasted) will be hit than if each individual started to track a specific target. In the heat of a battle its much easier to train a man to fire straight ahead than to expect him to pick a target and make his colleagues aware of it.

There's also a certain amount of psychological value to firing in a volley. A targetted formation can shrug off the gradual loss of a man here and there (unless they happen to be NCO's or Officers) but it takes guts to step over the head of a column where every man in the first few ranks has been hit in the space of seconds.

Its funny, because wherever musket-users picked specific targets (United States, Afghanistan), they were incredibly more effective than their mass-firing adversaries (British!!!) who picked no targets. A musket's range is practically doubled if you fire it at a specific target rather than "in the direction of" one.