View Full Version : IS the Russo-Jap war "Obscure"?
Daniel Sturgis
24 Aug 06, 10:15
I've never thought it was particularly obscure. In downtown Portland Oregon there is a monument to those brave Oregonians who died in the Phillipine Insurgency of 1902. Now that is obscure. Of course PO also has some pieces of the battleship Oregon...Oh, but my mind wanders...anyway....If you go to the American Museum of Natural History, the whole main atrium is devoted to Allegories of the Russo-Jap war and the treaty that ended it.
And, of course, if you read even the most superficial possible histories of Russia, Japan, Korea and China it would be mentioned and not as a particularly obscure event.
If you look into the history of warship design, it comes at a pretty crucial moment and marks the beginning of the end of pre-dreadnought battleships close to the exact center of predreadnought temporal existence (which you can imagine as the period from the launching of the Royal Soveriegns in 1889 to the treaty of Versailles, which allowed Germany to keep a predreadnought since it was not considered a serious weapon any more...giving a crisp 30 years of pre-dreadnoughts)
There's a Heaven where the predreadnoughts clash
on the way to heaving trash
at smaller ships that preceedeth, dim,
on the way to extinction's whim.
(edited for crispiness, again and then for 'dim' and yet again for 'Whim' )
WallysWorld
24 Aug 06, 10:28
It was obscure to me until about eight years ago when I started reading about Tsar Nicholas II and the book mentioned briefly this war. That is when I delved more deeply into it.
For example, US Civil War is "Obscure" to me, and I don't wan't to learn anything about it, except everything according to the first fight of monitor class ships.
You see, there are things which are not interesting to u, and they of course may look obscure to u.
It was obscure to me until this game arrived. Militarily, the first decade of the 20th century is not a period I am normally interested in and I had always overlooked the naval aspect because of that. I love the way some games broaden your horizons and introduce you to a whole new period of history.
"Obscure" is relative. When compared to the World Wars, the RJW is obscure. Even graduate history course gloss over it. Very short-sighted because the way diplomacy failed the Japanese in the Sino-Japanese War, RJW and WW I may partially explain why militarism became as strong as it was in the 1920s.
For example, US Civil War is "Obscure" to me, and I don't wan't to learn anything about it, except everything according to the first fight of monitor class ships.
You see, there are things which are not interesting to u, and they of course may look obscure to u.
I do not think you can corelate obscure with interest. Just on the basis of published material alone, I think you can say that it is obscure compared to the American Civil War. I would venture that for every source on Russo-Japanese War, there are atleast 10(and probably way more) on the American Civil War. That is not saying it is not interesting, just not as well studied or documented-atleast in English.:) I do not know how many source documents or published works exist for the Russo -apanese War but for the American Civil War, WWI, WWII etc there are thousands in many languages. I just do not think such a large volume of material is available. In that sense it is obsure. JMHO
Gusington
24 Aug 06, 12:16
Obscure to some, but in this thread anyway, important and interesting to all. As mentioned above it is a shame that not more energy/attention is paid to the RJW because it would help explain a lot of the military history of the 20th century. Anyone know how the Japanese view the RJW? I'd actually be curious to find out how they view their own history from say, the 1850s to the end of WWI. I know the Japanese see World War II in *ahem*, 'their own special way', but how do they see the 80-90 years of their own history preceding it?
Bullethead
24 Aug 06, 12:33
I do not think you can corelate obscure with interest. Just on the basis of published material alone, I think you can say that it is obscure compared to the American Civil War. I would venture that for every source on Russo-Japanese War, there are atleast 10(and probably way more) on the American Civil War.
There is absolute obscurity, measured by available sources, and there is relative obscurity, which is what KGB is talking about and is measured by how one uses the available sources.
Here's an extreme example: There was a battle of the War Between the States (it was neither a civil war nor a rebellion, despite 150 years of winner-written propoganda since) that was fought in my cow pasture. It had extremely important consequences, but only within about a 20-mile radius of my pasture. As such, if it is mentioned at all in any source commonly available (which it isn't, AFAIK), it's just as a passing remark about minor skirmishes in part of the Port Hudson campaign. There is no marker there or anything. It is, therefore, absolutely obscure. Yet I and most other locals know all about it and the whole sub-campaign of which it was a part, which makes it relatively well-documented. So which is it?
As for the RJW, I think relative obscurity is the best way to describe it. Certainly every naval grog who came up with miniatures is very familiar with it as an essential part of naval grog culture. The fact that land grogs know nothing about the RJW doesn't matter, because the naval grogs often don't know or care much about Operation Bagration, the Battle of Aspern-Esling, or whatever :).
Certainly by one measure, it is obscure in the U.S. When I went to the largest local book retailer in my area, Borders, they did not have one book about the war. When I searched the on-line station in the store for such books, they were all either out-of-print or available only by order. Some were going for $90+.
By the same token, I am sure that if you went to the largest retail book store in Moscow or Tokyo, you'd have a tough time finding books in the local language about the French & Indian War or the Mexican-American War.
I did find a book about the Philippine War, 1899-1902. It is mainly about the land conflict, but there are some interesting passages about the use of gunboats to support an early version of joint operations. To paraphrase the song, they were purple when purple wasn't cool.
I do not think you can corelate obscure with interest. Just on the basis of published material alone, I think you can say that it is obscure compared to the American Civil War. I would venture that for every source on Russo-Japanese War, there are atleast 10(and probably way more) on the American Civil War. That is not saying it is not interesting, just not as well studied or documented-atleast in English.:) I do not know how many source documents or published works exist for the Russo -apanese War but for the American Civil War, WWI, WWII etc there are thousands in many languages. I just do not think such a large volume of material is available. In that sense it is obsure. JMHO
I am sure that there is much more material available in Russian and Japanese though, and probably not that much on the ACW in either language.
There is absolute obscurity, measured by available sources, and there is relative obscurity, which is what KGB is talking about and is measured by how one uses the available sources.
Here's an extreme example: There was a battle of the War Between the States (it was neither a civil war nor a rebellion, despite 150 years of winner-written propoganda since) that was fought in my cow pasture. It had extremely important consequences, but only within about a 20-mile radius of my pasture. As such, if it is mentioned at all in any source commonly available (which it isn't, AFAIK), it's just as a passing remark about minor skirmishes in part of the Port Hudson campaign. There is no marker there or anything. It is, therefore, absolutely obscure. Yet I and most other locals know all about it and the whole sub-campaign of which it was a part, which makes it relatively well-documented. So which is it?
As for the RJW, I think relative obscurity is the best way to describe it. Certainly every naval grog who came up with miniatures is very familiar with it as an essential part of naval grog culture. The fact that land grogs know nothing about the RJW doesn't matter, because the naval grogs often don't know or care much about Operation Bagration, the Battle of Aspern-Esling, or whatever :).
You are right here. The obscurity is relative thing, and it is hard to be determined. There are too many things that u *wish to* know, but the amount of things u actually *know* is always lower, because all of us have their own lives, where u need to spare most part of your time to do things which are, not *obscure* to you, such as girlfriend/wife, work, home, friends, etc :D
U just can't to remove obscurity from all the things you are intrested in, and u have to decide which things deserve it, and which not.
Example - I'm IT@Economics specialist (graduated from University a pair of month ago), and I'm very intrested in Superstrings Theory, Astrophysics, ship modelling and construction issues, and so on, and my *favourite* work is QA engineer, and I have plans to be a game designer someday.
:smoke:
So obscurity equals how far away from the event you are geographically multiplied by how long ago it happened in time divided by how much you have read (or been taught) :D
So obscurity equals how far away from the event you are geographically multiplied by how long ago it happened in time divided by how much you have read (or been taught) :D
U forgot to derivate the obtained value by the nation you belongs to :p
I was always looking into warfare of this time , because it was the main turning point from the old to the modern.
This time is when the big warships and Radios and massive fleets of steel ships where really coming about.
In WWI the ground war was still in the throws of change, trench warfare with mounted troops, on horses that is. Some still wore armor from the days of swords.
This time caused quick change from the old to the new, and if you did not you would have been trampled on with out mercy.
So it was not an era that I did not know about , but that was because I liked to study this type and time. To each his or her own I guess, but I am one that is very glad to see this game out , and covering this time.
Hinchinbrooke
24 Aug 06, 19:24
Obscure or not, I'm looking forward to decent Franco-Prussian War/Seven Years War sims.....................:D
Obscure or not, I'm looking forward to decent Franco-Prussian War/Seven Years War sims.....................:D
I think we are going to see a lot of good wars played out in this game, I like you like that war or wars also. But I am having to much fun with the one I have now to do anything else. lol
Gusington
24 Aug 06, 21:56
Daedalus, you hit the nail right on the head (for me anyway). I have always loved this era of history for its being the beginning of the world we know now, technologically and politically. But its important to realize that old traditions don't just disappear overnight, especially in a culture like Japan's. So the mixture of tech and tradition is especially cool in a game like DG.
Oh, and BTW, I have been waiting for a soild Franco-Prussian War game (and WWI) for what feels like an eternity. DG is a good appetizer for any games coming out on either topic.
Lempereur1
24 Aug 06, 23:27
Wargamers are on a constant search. We find something in a period of history that tickles the history bone and were off! With each foray into that period, the picture grows bigger, the understanding deeper, and then the vein with of gemstone crystals plays out.
After that, we constantly scan everything we come across, looking for signs of a new vein. When we find one, the rush is on all over again!
Now where's my pick.....
Daniel Sturgis
25 Aug 06, 09:21
Wargamers are on a constant search. We find something in a period of history that tickles the history bone and were off! With each foray into that period, the picture grows bigger, the understanding deeper, and then the vein with of gemstone crystals plays out.
After that, we constantly scan everything we come across, looking for signs of a new vein. When we find one, the rush is on all over again!
Now where's my pick.....
You should Pick something along the lines of Prince Henry's view of the Seven-Year's War. Hutchinbrooke mentioned the war, but I think a Prince Henry's eye view would make for a really cool game. Prince Henry was Frederick the Great's younger brother and he was by all accounts a much more cunning commander than Frederick. Toward the end of the War, Henry tended to be in command of smaller, peripheral forces of "inferior" (ie irregulars and poorly-paid mercenaries) troops and light cavalry...and yet he did quite well (all things considered)...
Just my usual cheer for Prince Henry.
Wargamers are on a constant search. We find something in a period of history that tickles the history bone and were off! With each foray into that period, the picture grows bigger, the understanding deeper, and then the vein with of gemstone crystals plays out.
After that, we constantly scan everything we come across, looking for signs of a new vein. When we find one, the rush is on all over again!
Now where's my pick.....
My pick is:
This game just cries out to be done for the Civil War. Picture the Monitor and the Merrimac, Mobile Bay, or the US Navy vs the R.N. How about battles with the Chilean Navy. If you think this period(RJW) has some cool 3_D ships. Yaqunito Press did Ironclad and Ironclad Expansion games that would be awesome in this game. Ramming IS an option.:clown:
My pick is:
This game just cries out to be done for the Civil War. Picture the Monitor and the Merrimac, Mobile Bay, or the US Navy vs the R.N. How about battles with the Chilean Navy. If you think this period(RJW) has some cool 3_D ships. Yaqunito Press did Ironclad and Ironclad Expansion games that would be awesome in this game. Ramming IS an option.:clown:
I'm with you on the Civil War and on, I have not seen anything done for that time with a great engine like this one. I had board games or still do and they where great. But I do not remember anything for the computer.
I have the old one that I will have to go and look. I think it was Steel something. You not only controlled the ships like we do here but you could shoot each gun or direct the whole thing from the main director. It was not the SSI one, but I can not remember it.
But having one on or about the time of the Civil War would be fantastic I think.
And after the war where they took the first Monitors out to see and had to be careful not to swam them. And the Brush Fire wars that popped up till the Spanish American war. At leas I think it would be a great time to model.
I'm with you on the Civil War and on, I have not seen anything done for that time with a great engine like this one. I had board games or still do and they where great. But I do not remember anything for the computer.
I have the old one that I will have to go and look. I think it was Steel something. You not only controlled the ships like we do here but you could shoot each gun or direct the whole thing from the main director. It was not the SSI one, but I can not remember it.
But having one on or about the time of the Civil War would be fantastic I think.
And after the war where they took the first Monitors out to see and had to be careful not to swam them. And the Brush Fire wars that popped up till the Spanish American war. At leas I think it would be a great time to model.
Reminds me of a grand strategic game from Germany called Dampf und Stahl (Steam and Steel). It allowed a player to R&D the tech for the ironclad, predeadnought, and dreadnought eras. I would love to see something like that combined with DG's system.
I am against the Civil War game. Mainly because this era in naval warfare was one of those rare moments when armor was better then guns&shells. The battles would be boring - imagine pounding the enemy, hoping that the crews might die of concussion. Or 14 hours of fort vs river gunboat duel.
If SES is contemplating going backwards, they might jump a little farther back into sailing ships era. Maybe a little farther than usual 17th/18th Cent, to 1588 or 1627 (the battle of Oliva, the Polish navy brief moment of triumph against the Swedes...)
I am against the Civil War game. Mainly because this era in naval warfare was one of those rare moments when armor was better then guns&shells. The battles would be boring - imagine pounding the enemy, hoping that the crews might die of concussion. Or 14 hours of fort vs river gunboat duel.
If SES is contemplating going backwards, they might jump a little farther back into sailing ships era. Maybe a little farther than usual 17th/18th Cent, to 1588 or 1627 (the battle of Oliva, the Polish navy brief moment of triumph against the Swedes...)
Evidently the Civil War in the USA is far from Obscure. Probably it could use a little obscurity, especially for the naval aspect, which would have to simulate fortresses and entrenchments, repairing entrenchments and massive infantry assaults to be functional at all. Actually, the US Civil War might be the least interesting naval situation of all time in pure naval terms. Any conflict that generated the monitor as the ultimate warship must have been far too twisted to work in a reasonable simulation.
If you have to have a fortress versus shipping war, the Dardanelles in the First World War would be both less complex than the Civil War and have considerably more choices for the players. You could turn the mechanics of the Dardanelles situation into a US Civil War mod simply by removing most of the interesting options and substituting disease and poor communications and reducing the range and effect of all of the weapons while making the ships relatively invulnerable.
So it might be wise to arbitrarily increase the obscurity of the US Civil War and decrease the obscurity of, say, the Dardanelles.
Lempereur1
25 Aug 06, 23:23
There is so much about this war that most wargamers dont even know. It is thick with spying, heros, villians, treachry, and political intrigue that would rival Reily Ace of Spies!
IF ANY WOULD BE HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER IS LOOKING FOR A GREAT NEW FRESH IDEA for a movie, here it is! Be the first! Enlighten the world!
Its always been Norms dream to do this game!
Naval doctrine and theroy for years to come was shaped by this war.
Obscure is a relative statement...
The US civil war is not obscure to Americans, whereas the Russian civil war might be obscure.
Of course, for Russians - the US civil war is far more obscure and unimportant to them than their own Civil war which saw the birth of the USSR.
As a Brit, the Falklands war may seem obscure to many around the world - but to the British it is not, nor is the Zulu war, the Afghan campaign - or indeed troubles we had in Sudan during the Victorian era.
I think relative to a western audience the Russo-Japanese war might be considered obscure as we are fed a diet of WW2 and other such events...
But I think it is hard to make rulings about what is and is not obscure as it is entriely relative to where you live in the world...
I love relativity arguments! Everything is relative... :o
There is so much about this war that most wargamers dont even know. It is thick with spying, heros, villians, treachry, and political intrigue that would rival Reily Ace of Spies!
IF ANY WOULD BE HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER IS LOOKING FOR A GREAT NEW FRESH IDEA for a movie, here it is! Be the first! Enlighten the world!
Its always been Norms dream to do this game!
Naval doctrine and theroy for years to come was shaped by this war.
And, you can easily Mod any game involving Russia into a US Civil War game simply by having Russia or the Bolesheviks be the Confederacy. In such a mod, for example, the Johnny Reb Bolsheviks would be suppressed in 1905, but rise again and win in the Civil War of 1917-1920. Stalin as a cavalry general is of course the Perfect Southern Gentleman, a real Nathan Bedford Forest and JEB Stuart all in one man and Trotsky is the Ideal Robert E. Lee equivalent. The facial hair is even similar in many cases. Burnside for example resembles Prince Igor.
Obscure is a relative statement...
The US civil war is not obscure to Americans, whereas the Russian civil war might be obscure.
Of course, for Russians - the US civil war is far more obscure and unimportant to them than their own Civil war which saw the birth of the USSR.
As a Brit, the Falklands war may seem obscure to many around the world - but to the British it is not, nor is the Zulu war, the Afghan campaign - or indeed troubles we had in Sudan during the Victorian era.
I think relative to a western audience the Russo-Japanese war might be considered obscure as we are fed a diet of WW2 and other such events...
But I think it is hard to make rulings about what is and is not obscure as it is entriely relative to where you live in the world...
I love relativity arguments! Everything is relative... :o
True enough, although I think many of the British wars are better known than the others merely because they've been made into movies. You know most people don't know anything about history unless they get it in movie form. :)
Even American history that doesn't occur in the mainland US gets the short end of the stick here because of the way it's presented. Most history teachers just focus on the basics you have to know to pass tests, so it ends up being merely a boring list of dates and names. I mean, how many people actually know that American forces landed in Formosa in 1867, or stages a small invasion of Korea in 1871, or that we had forces in Siberia during the Russian Civil War, some people know about the Abraham Lincoln Brigade during the Spanish Civil War, but that's mainly because it became such a political event. It's pretty sad really. I was just lucky enough to have a really good set of history teachers in high school, that made it interesting for us.
Bullethead
26 Aug 06, 13:52
Even American history that doesn't occur in the mainland US gets the short end of the stick here because of the way it's presented.
It's not just US history that has this problem, but all events. Compared to the RJW, WW2 is massively well-documented and constantly in the public eye today with all the movies, documentaries, books, recollections of living family members, etc. However, WW2 was truly global in scope, and the coverage of it in any given nation focuses on the parts of the war that nation participated in. For example, until just a few years ago, folks in the West knew almost nothing about the only REAL land campaign in the war, the apocalyptic struggle on the Eastern Front. Compared to that, all the other land campaigns were small change, despite their being covered ad nauseum in Western historical works.
how many people actually know that ... we had forces in Siberia during the Russian Civil War
I have all my life, but that's only because one of my granddaddy's brothers was there and he used to tell me stories about it when I was little :).
I have all my life, but that's only because one of my granddaddy's brothers was there and he used to tell me stories about it when I was little :).
I got a good description of this kind of thing from a book I read a couple of years ago, Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen, about just how bad history textbooks really are. It described how in Africa, society and history is divided into three parts, the people currently alive, the Sasha, and the Zamani.
The Sasha are those people and events that still have people living who remember them directly and the Zamani are those that have nobody left with direct experience.
Generally, as soon as a person or event moves from the Sasha to the Zumani, they tend to become more and more mythological in a sense. Things are changing a bit since the advent of better recording media, but it's still true. As the last of our WWI veterans pass on, the true stories and horrors of the war begin to fade and only the extremes tend to be remembered without a conscious effort to record and remember anything else.
Events that involve a very few people will always tend to fade from the public consciousness, and, of course, from the history books. It's logical, but a shame since some of the smaller events can be just as interesting as the huge ones we all remember to one degree or another.
Sorry, long rambling post, not sure where that came from. I'm just frankly pissed off about the state of our educational system, because it doesn't even bother to try and draw anyone in, or explain why it's important to learn history anymore, and as a history major, it's just sad to me.
I got a good description of this kind of thing from a book I read a couple of years ago, Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen, about just how bad history textbooks really are. It described how in Africa, society and history is divided into three parts, the people currently alive, the Sasha, and the Zamani.
None of the African Narrative systems I know much about (Dogon, Nyakusa and Shamba Kingdom, and a Kingdom whose name I've forgotten on Kilimanjaro, Chagga?) work that way. In fact, King Arthur probably works better as an example of the effects of differential obscurity. Three different Arthurs turn up in narratives or poems or allegories (Gildas, where he is nameless) covering 450-650 AD. By Nennius (a bad source obviously) around 850 there is only one, and his chronology is indeterminate. By the time of Chretien of Troyes, Arthur is completely mythical, ie not even obscure, just a myth.
saddletank
27 Aug 06, 04:35
As the last of our WWI veterans pass on, the true stories and horrors of the war begin to fade and only the extremes tend to be remembered without a conscious effort to record and remember anything else.
The African tribal view of the past I can relate to and I think many societies do that either consciously or unconsciously however your example of the way we think about WWI is not such a strong example. In Britain there's a very robust book industry with many writers revisiting the WWI period and jumping on the currently very fashionable 'revisionist' style of history. A couple of books in recent years have been interesting apologist material for the British generals who for decades have been looked upon as incompetent slaughterers of innocent young men. These new books are interesting in that they put the casualties into perspective versus the population of the time: comments like "there wasn't a single house in my dad's street where there wasn't a family in mourning" are now being seen to be simply untrue. The generals actually worked within the limitations of the technology and command and control systems at their disposal pretty efficiently and the British army introduced a number of tactical and stragetic innovations over the course of the war on the Western Front. History can be revised and not always with rose tinted glasses on.
Not sure what this has to do with the topic but it's intereresting to see this happening today regarding events of 85+ years ago.
Bullethead
27 Aug 06, 14:04
In Britain there's a very robust book industry with many writers revisiting the WWI period and jumping on the currently very fashionable 'revisionist' style of history. A couple of books in recent years have been interesting apologist material for the British generals who for decades have been looked upon as incompetent slaughterers of innocent young men.
I've never thought that myself. Anybody taking a look at the tactics employed in all the battles, even just reading the material available before the revisionists, should have known better. The Entente had to attack to win the war (it was either that or concede large chunks of territory to the Germans), so the question was how to go about it. And you can easily see that the Brit generals, at least, were trying something new every time. They only had infantry and arty to start with, and they tried them in every conceivable combination. Then they started mixing in tanks and airplanes with yet more tweaking of infantry and arty methods. All this was hampered by the utter lack of realtime communications at any meaningful level of command, but at least they were trying.
These new books are interesting in that they put the casualties into perspective versus the population of the time: comments like "there wasn't a single house in my dad's street where there wasn't a family in mourning" are now being seen to be simply untrue.
I dunno. I've been to the UK several times, and every little village has a memorial somewhere listing all the locals killed in both WW1 and WW2. And the WW1 list is almost always way longer than the WW2 list, and usually long enough to make you wonder how the village survived. Even more disturbing is going through the Highlands and seeing such stones (usually from WW1 only) right on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere. They have dozens of names from what were once villages in the immediate area, that today do not exist at all. Except for the road and the stone, there's no sign of human activity for miles in all directions.
After the War Between the States, it's been said that 1 out of every 3 men of military age in the South was dead (and a lot of the survivors were amputees). That war definitely left a mark, even if it wasn't quite so harsh as that. When I was very young, there were still a bunch of ancient spinsters around who'd never been able to marry because of the shortage of men when they were young. And these old ladies were the children of surviving veterans. My dad remembers from his youth a larger number of spinsters from the war generation itself.
I've never thought that myself. Anybody taking a look at the tactics employed in all the battles, even just reading the material available before the revisionists, should have known better. The Entente had to attack to win the war (it was either that or concede large chunks of territory to the Germans), so the question was how to go about it. And you can easily see that the Brit generals, at least, were trying something new every time. They only had infantry and arty to start with, and they tried them in every conceivable combination. Then they started mixing in tanks and airplanes with yet more tweaking of infantry and arty methods. All this was hampered by the utter lack of realtime communications at any meaningful level of command, but at least they were trying.
I dunno. I've been to the UK several times, and every little village has a memorial somewhere listing all the locals killed in both WW1 and WW2. And the WW1 list is almost always way longer than the WW2 list, and usually long enough to make you wonder how the village survived. Even more disturbing is going through the Highlands and seeing such stones (usually from WW1 only) right on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere. They have dozens of names from what were once villages in the immediate area, that today do not exist at all. Except for the road and the stone, there's no sign of human activity for miles in all directions.
After the War Between the States, it's been said that 1 out of every 3 men of military age in the South was dead (and a lot of the survivors were amputees). That war definitely left a mark, even if it wasn't quite so harsh as that. When I was very young, there were still a bunch of ancient spinsters around who'd never been able to marry because of the shortage of men when they were young. And these old ladies were the children of surviving veterans. My dad remembers from his youth a larger number of spinsters from the war generation itself.
I am from the South, and I can say that it was this way up into the 60,s there still where not enough men . My grand father was a doctor and he told us one Christmas that the Civil War effects where still being felt even 95 years after it was over.
We had towns there that where ghost towns because the people left or the familys left to go to larger citys because there where not enough men to keep it up. Also a lot of men aftet the war where so angry at the north that they went west so they would not have to be under the Federal control.
I grew up hearing that
"In WW1 every household in the UK lost someone'.
However, there were some 900,000+ British Empire troops killed and approximately 15 million households at the time .... so perhaps
" ... from each extended family" would probably be more accurate.
Tanyrhiew
29 Aug 06, 07:50
The largest 'volunteer' army Britain has ever fielded wasn't from britain at all, it was the Indian Army. Went west at 2nd Ypres if my all too falliable brain serves me right.
The 'War of the world' 6-part series that was shown on Channel 4 recently I found very interesting.
Certainly gives value to the old adage about history:
people may change but mistakes never do
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.