QuoteThe American was voted the winner in a contest run by the National Army Museum to identify the country's most outstanding military opponent.
He was one of a shortlist of five leaders who topped a public poll and on Saturday was selected as the ultimate winner by an audience of around 70 guests at a special event at the museum, in Chelsea, west London.
In second place was Michael Collins, the Irish leader, ahead of Napoleon Bonaparte, Erwin Rommel and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
At the event, each contender had their case made by a historian giving a 40 minute presentation. The audience, who had paid to attend the day, then voted in a secret ballot after all five presentations had been made.
Dr Stephen Brumwell, who had championed Washington, said: "As British officers conceded, he was a worthy opponent."
The shortlist of five were selected from an initial list of 20 candidates, drawn up by the museum's curators.
To qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards – the period covered by the museum's collection – and had to have led an army in the field against the British, thus excluding political enemies, like Adolf Hitler.
The contest was designed to not only identify Britain's most outstanding opponent, but also to draw attention to some lesser-known adversaries.
Most of the 20 fought in various colonial wars, such as Ntshingwayo kaMahole, the Zulu leader and victor of Isandlwana, one of the British army's greatest military defeats, and Tipu Sultan, known as the "Tiger of Mysore", who resisted British expansion in India.
Alongside Rommel, the only Second World War leader was Tomoyuki Yamashita, the Japanese commander who oversaw the fall of Singapore. The one woman on the list was Rani of Jhansi, who fought British forces in nineteenth century India.
The online poll was launched in the middle of February, and around St Patrick's Day – March 17 – there was a surge in support for Michael Collins, although several people pointed out on the museum's website that, technically, the guerrilla leader never led an army on a battlefield.
He took a strong lead, but the contest was later featured in the Turkish media, leading to wave of support for Atatürk, who ended up winning with more than 3,000 votes – 40 per cent of those cast.
The museum selected the format – of an online poll followed by a closed vote – to filter out tactical voting, reducing the risk that a candidate could win thanks to orchestrated "block" voting – along national lines – rather than on the specific criteria of their performance in battle against the British. The eventual winner, George Washington, came fourth in the online poll, with less than two per cent of the vote.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9204961/George-Washington-named-Britains-greatest-ever-foe.html
I laughed, but then I remembered that unlike the other contenders, he actually won, and killed soldiers in the British army in their sleep on Christmas.
I'd like to vote for Gaius Suetonius Paulinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Suetonius_Paulinus). I'm sorry but wiping out the largest army Britain has ever assembled under a unified command on a single battlefield before the invention of Radio turning the entire country into a colony for 350 years must top anything that colonial rebels, continental dominators or foreign defenders of home turf.
I wonder what the maximum number of men Michael Collins commanded in the field against the British whilst they were still enemies ? :hmm:
I wouldn't be surprised to find it was little more than a strengthened company of 'infantry'.
I guess Guillaume actually counts as British?
And yeah, Michael Collins? Whatever.
Should be either Rommel or Yamashita.
The one outstanding battlefield defeat of the British during the American Revolution Washington didn't attend.
Quote from: Viking on April 15, 2012, 05:45:12 PM
I'd like to vote for Gaius Suetonius Paulinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Suetonius_Paulinus). I'm sorry but wiping out the largest army Britain has ever assembled under a unified command on a single battlefield before the invention of Radio turning the entire country into a colony for 350 years must top anything that colonial rebels, continental dominators or foreign defenders of home turf.
How do we know those numbers are anywhere near accurate?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2012, 05:59:44 PM
Should be either Rommel or Yamashita.
The one outstanding battlefield defeat of the British during the American Revolution Washington didn't attend.
Yorktown doesn't count as a battlefield defeat?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2012, 05:59:44 PM
Should be either Rommel or Yamashita.
The one outstanding battlefield defeat of the British during the American Revolution Washington didn't attend.
Yes, I'd agree, the first two between them nearly succeeded in cutting the whole empire in two.
Washington along with other commanders in a wider political and economic crisis between motherland and colony/ies.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2012, 06:04:53 PM
Yorktown doesn't count as a battlefield defeat?
It was a siege. The outcome of Yorktown (once Cornwallis had marched there) was decided by the Battle of the Chesapeake.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2012, 06:04:53 PM
Yorktown doesn't count as a battlefield defeat?
Tactical surrender.
No love for Willie the Bastard? :(
Ah, never mind. Damn the fine print! ;)
QuoteTo qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards – the period covered by the museum's collection – and had to have led an army in the field against the British, thus excluding political enemies, like Adolf Hitler.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 15, 2012, 06:04:05 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 15, 2012, 05:45:12 PM
I'd like to vote for Gaius Suetonius Paulinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Suetonius_Paulinus). I'm sorry but wiping out the largest army Britain has ever assembled under a unified command on a single battlefield before the invention of Radio turning the entire country into a colony for 350 years must top anything that colonial rebels, continental dominators or foreign defenders of home turf.
How do we know those numbers are anywhere near accurate?
We don't need to know that. With the exception of Townton every single other army ever assembled is at least a full order of magnitude smaller than the Iceni Horde. Even with Townton the largest estimates of the forces of both sides remains smaller than most estimates of the iceni horde.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2012, 06:04:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2012, 05:59:44 PM
Should be either Rommel or Yamashita.
The one outstanding battlefield defeat of the British during the American Revolution Washington didn't attend.
Yorktown doesn't count as a battlefield defeat?
Yes, but not to Washington, it was a defeat at the hands of Rochambeau.
I don't get why Washington's role at Yorktown is being discounted. Without Rochambeau it wouldn't have worked, but without Washington's army there wouldn't have been a siege.
Washington realized he didn't have to win decisive battles to win the war; he just had to make it not worth it for the British.
I can think of at least two Boers that deserve ranking over Rommel or Attaturk.
But yeah, good for ol' Georgie, who still doesn't get enough nearly enough credit for his generalship.
I guess William III doesn't count cause he won. Also I suppose Maurice de Saxe gets no love.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 15, 2012, 06:20:02 PM
I don't get why Washington's role at Yorktown is being discounted. Without Rochambeau it wouldn't have worked, but without Washington's army there wouldn't have been a siege.
I'm confused. I thought Washington brought some regiments down from the north after Cornwallis had been bottled up by Gates.
Washington gets no love here. The man kept an army in the field, and won battles with it, when others wouldn't have been able to. The Trenton campaign alone is worth his stars.
Quote from: PDH on April 15, 2012, 07:00:29 PM
Washington gets no love here. The man kept an army in the field, and won battles with it, when others wouldn't have been able to. The Trenton campaign alone is worth his stars.
He almost handed the whole army over a couple times during the New York campaign.
Quote from: PDH on April 15, 2012, 07:00:29 PM
Washington gets no love here. The man kept an army in the field, and won battles with it, when others wouldn't have been able to. The Trenton campaign alone is worth his stars.
He does here. :wub:
Trenton, and the delaying actions to successfully haul ass out of the New York trap.
Very few generals managed to keep an army in the field for so long against an opponent that tried for years to engage him in one battle that would've ended it all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2012, 07:03:15 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 15, 2012, 07:00:29 PM
Washington gets no love here. The man kept an army in the field, and won battles with it, when others wouldn't have been able to. The Trenton campaign alone is worth his stars.
He almost handed the whole army over a couple times during the New York campaign.
And we almost got tossed back into the sea at Omaha beach. Big fucking deal. Almost only counts in horseshoes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2012, 07:03:38 PM
Trenton, and the delaying actions to successfully haul ass out of the New York trap.
Very few generals managed to keep an army in the field for so long against an opponent that tried for years to engage him in one battle that would've ended it all.
Oh, and FUCK general Lee at Monmouth.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2012, 07:03:15 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 15, 2012, 07:00:29 PM
Washington gets no love here. The man kept an army in the field, and won battles with it, when others wouldn't have been able to. The Trenton campaign alone is worth his stars.
He almost handed the whole army over a couple times during the New York campaign.
Washington's greatest fault was trusting subordinates. They were full of fail.
Quote from: PDH on April 15, 2012, 07:06:30 PM
Washington's greatest fault was trusting subordinates. They were full of fail.
Which of his subordinates chose defensive positions backing up on unfordable, unbridged rivers?
Quote from: PDH on April 15, 2012, 07:05:35 PM
Oh, and FUCK general Lee at Monmouth.
Should've shot that fucker in the field, right on the spot. Just shows what a true gentleman Washington was.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2012, 07:08:33 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 15, 2012, 07:06:30 PM
Washington's greatest fault was trusting subordinates. They were full of fail.
Which of his subordinates chose defensive positions backing up on unfordable, unbridged rivers?
You are a hater. He knew he could get out of there. I do not think the "Miracle of New York" is as big as it is made out to be, Washington understood his opponent and the conditions. Howe was not about to pursue too vigorously, and Washington felt his position was alright. He was failed by subordinates who couldn't even hold defensive positions.
Quote from: PDH on April 15, 2012, 07:11:43 PM
You are a hater.
Yes, he is. :P
QuoteI do not think the "Miracle of New York" is as big as it is made out to be,
Hey now, those were Maryland boys. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2012, 07:12:53 PM
Hey now, those were Maryland boys. :(
I blame the subordinates. Washington did have a big weakness and that was relying on people whom he felt would be alright in the long run - he didn't have that instinct to weed out the chaff. A well dug in army in the 18th century should have been able to humble an attacker, but too many of the colonial leaders were ready to break and run too fast.
Quote from: PDH on April 15, 2012, 07:11:43 PM
Washington felt his position was alright.
He was wrong.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2012, 07:03:15 PM
He almost handed the whole army over a couple times during the New York campaign.
Good generalship isn't just about fighting and winning. Effective fighting withdrawals are rare and very difficult to pull off.
Of those five:
Nappy
Ataturk
Collins
Rommel
Washington
But they're all very great.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2012, 07:17:16 PM
Of those five:
Nappy
Ataturk
Collins
Rommel
Washington
But they're all very great.
I don't see any Boers on that list.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2012, 07:36:56 PM
I don't see any Boers on that list.
I said of those five.
But the Boers deserve nothing <_<
Rommel's way over-rated. He was a brilliant tactician, but didn't understand war at all.
George Washington understood war. So did Napoleon (who considered Washington the only general superior to himself).
Ataturk was a genius at war but a much greater genius at peace.
Yamashita was at war with the British for much too short a time to qualify as a "great foe." He kicked ass in that short time, but the British would have been readily defeated by almost any competent commander. The same short timespan thing could be said for Napoleon (bar the "kicked ass" part :) )
The dentist.
I think the Boer war may well have been the most embarrassing war for Britain in those 3 centuries. An ultimate deployment of 250,000 trooops to deal with 50,000 enemy effectives :hmm:
Not sure about Washington. Unless the Americans on the British side won it for us, it is hard to see a satisfactory outcome for that war from the British point of view. I suppose he could have lost it for the Americans though :hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2012, 07:40:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2012, 07:36:56 PM
I don't see any Boers on that list.
I said of those five.
But the Boers deserve nothing <_<
Free country vacations.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 15, 2012, 07:47:15 PM
Not sure about Washington. Unless the Americans on the British side won it for us, it is hard to see a satisfactory outcome for that war from the British point of view. I suppose he could have lost it for the Americans though :hmm:
True enough. I think he managed time and again to withdraw while preserving the fighting strength of his army which is never easy and seems particularly rare in the 18th century. That made him so effective against the British.
QuoteAtaturk was a genius at war but a much greater genius at peace.
Agreed. But my impression is everyone knows and admires his acts as President while how impressive the war of independence is has been forgotten - except in Turkey :lol:
I would agree about Washington, even though a bit surprised that he was voted the greatest antagonist. He had to do a lot more than win battles. He had to keep the army and revolution going. It was his force of will and leadership that time and time again kept the army intact and in the field. If not for Washington's perserverence and the will he instilled in the army, the revolution would have been lost quickly. He was also responsible for subordinate commanders in the different regions of the colonies. Some of them did exremely well, others not so much. But over all they did more than well enough to prevent a British victory.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2012, 07:03:15 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 15, 2012, 07:00:29 PM
Washington gets no love here. The man kept an army in the field, and won battles with it, when others wouldn't have been able to. The Trenton campaign alone is worth his stars.
He almost handed the whole army over a couple times during the New York campaign.
He also had little training to prepare himself as a senior commander of an entire army.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2012, 07:40:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2012, 07:36:56 PM
I don't see any Boers on that list.
I said of those five.
But the Boers deserve nothing <_<
I rest my case. :smarty: :smarty: :smarty: :smarty: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
I think he managed time and again to withdraw while preserving the fighting strength of his army which is never easy and seems particularly rare in the 18th century.
Even in the 19th century with increased mobility, TEH MOST REVEREND Robert E. Lee, Lord Protector of Dumbfuckistan, couldn't even manage to do it all the way to the end.
What's so Goddamned great about the Boers? You realize that, were they alive today, Boers would be Republicans, right?
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2012, 07:43:13 PM
George Washington understood war. So did Napoleon (who considered Washington the only general superior to himself).
That's interesting- do you have a cite for that? I'm not skeptical, just curious as to the sourc.e
Quote from: PDH on April 15, 2012, 07:16:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2012, 07:12:53 PM
Hey now, those were Maryland boys. :(
I blame the subordinates. Washington did have a big weakness and that was relying on people whom he felt would be alright in the long run - he didn't have that instinct to weed out the chaff. A well dug in army in the 18th century should have been able to humble an attacker, but too many of the colonial leaders were ready to break and run too fast.
Washington also had a big problem in that his officer pool was a lot of chaff. The military tradition was all on the British side. He ended up letting a lot of senior positions go to Europeans, in some cases with sketchy backgrounds and a language barrier, because hardly anyone else over here knew what they were doing.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2012, 08:49:44 PM
What's so Goddamned great about the Boers? You realize that, were they alive today, Boers would be Republicans, right?
Because the Boers wrote the fucking book on asymmetrical warfare against a military fighting it with the last war's army. Sound familiar?
If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2012, 09:03:46 PM
If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.
Hard to provide logistical support to massed bomber fleets in the 1700s. Horses just can't carry that much fuel.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 15, 2012, 10:29:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2012, 09:03:46 PM
If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.
Hard to provide logistical support to massed bomber fleets in the 1700s. Horses just can't carry that much fuel.
I'm pretty sure he meant Vietnam and Iraq, Mr. Smarty-Pants.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2012, 06:44:14 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 15, 2012, 06:20:02 PM
I don't get why Washington's role at Yorktown is being discounted. Without Rochambeau it wouldn't have worked, but without Washington's army there wouldn't have been a siege.
I'm confused. I thought Washington brought some regiments down from the north after Cornwallis had been bottled up by Gates.
"Granny" Gates wasn't involved after his debacle at the battle of Camden. Greene was in charge of the Southern Army at that time. Also, A large portion of the officers in the Continental Army received their commissions and advancements due to friends in Congress, not the actions of Washington. He was hamstrung on numerous occasions by his favorites being passed over or neglected by political opponents.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2012, 09:03:46 PM
If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.
Indeed. Global Naval Power FTW!
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 15, 2012, 10:29:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2012, 09:03:46 PM
If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.
Hard to provide logistical support to massed bomber fleets in the 1700s. Horses just can't carry that much fuel.
Japan's defeat was not caused by massed bomber fleets. It was caused by massed naval fleets. The bombing offensive against Japan was ineffective until the last eight months of the war, when it destroyed factories and workshops that weren't producing because they had no materials with which to produce.
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2012, 04:48:51 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 15, 2012, 10:29:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2012, 09:03:46 PM
If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.
Hard to provide logistical support to massed bomber fleets in the 1700s. Horses just can't carry that much fuel.
Japan's defeat was not caused by massed bomber fleets. It was caused by massed naval fleets. The bombing offensive against Japan was ineffective until the last eight months of the war, when it destroyed factories and workshops that weren't producing because they had no materials with which to produce.
No, Japans defeat was caused by massed naval fleets supported by massed bomber fleets destroying japans of lesser magnitude massed naval and bomber fleets which enabled the massed land armies to concentrate to destroy certain outposts which enabled massed bomber fleets to destroy the japanese homeland while the massed fleets prepared to transport the massed armies to japan.
Had the US had a bomber capable of bombing japan from bases in alaska in August 1945 all of this would have been unecessary.
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2012, 04:48:51 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 15, 2012, 10:29:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2012, 09:03:46 PM
If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.
Hard to provide logistical support to massed bomber fleets in the 1700s. Horses just can't carry that much fuel.
Japan's defeat was not caused by massed bomber fleets. It was caused by massed naval fleets. The bombing offensive against Japan was ineffective until the last eight months of the war, when it destroyed factories and workshops that weren't producing because they had no materials with which to produce.
It's even harder to put a flight deck on a ship-of-the-line.
Or make it water-tight and submersible. Torpedoes could probably be done, however.
Quote from: Viking on April 16, 2012, 04:57:33 AM
Had the US had a bomber capable of bombing japan from bases in alaska in August 1945 all of this would have been unecessary.
All those houses and factories made of teak wood and rice paper would've burned just as quickly sooner than later.
Quote from: Viking on April 16, 2012, 04:57:33 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2012, 04:48:51 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 15, 2012, 10:29:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2012, 09:03:46 PM
If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.
Hard to provide logistical support to massed bomber fleets in the 1700s. Horses just can't carry that much fuel.
Japan's defeat was not caused by massed bomber fleets. It was caused by massed naval fleets. The bombing offensive against Japan was ineffective until the last eight months of the war, when it destroyed factories and workshops that weren't producing because they had no materials with which to produce.
No, Japans defeat was caused by massed naval fleets supported by massed bomber fleets destroying japans of lesser magnitude massed naval and bomber fleets which enabled the massed land armies to concentrate to destroy certain outposts which enabled massed bomber fleets to destroy the japanese homeland while the massed fleets prepared to transport the massed armies to japan.
Had the US had a bomber capable of bombing japan from bases in alaska in August 1945 all of this would have been unecessary.
And if the US had nuclear tipped ICBMs the war would have been over by December 10th. The Aluetians proved to be a poor staging area for bombers anyway. There really wasn't a good place to bomb Japan from till late '44. Interestingly, one of the most effective uses of US bombers in the Japan was mine laying.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 16, 2012, 07:03:04 AM
It's even harder to put a flight deck on a ship-of-the-line.
Not as hard as imagining why you would want to do such a thing! :lol:
QuoteOr make it water-tight and submersible. Torpedoes could probably be done, however.
Torpedoes would be harder than submersibles. Not sure why this is an issue, though; torpedoes and submersibles far antedated strategic bombers.
Quote from: Viking on April 16, 2012, 04:57:33 AM
Had the US had a bomber capable of bombing japan from bases in alaska in August 1945 all of this would have been unecessary.
Why would you imagine that, in August 1945, the US suddenly no longer had any bombers capable of bombing Japan from bases in Alaska? :huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2012, 07:13:15 AM
Interestingly, one of the most effective uses of US bombers in the Japan was mine laying.
Yeah, I've read of that. It was something I hadn't heard of before and was surprised at how effective it was.
Quote from: KRonn on April 16, 2012, 01:32:22 PM
Yeah, I've read of that. It was something I hadn't heard of before and was surprised at how effective it was.
It makes sense when you think about it, though:
(1) Accuracy requirements are not high;
(2) Difficult to defend, since the bomber spends so little time in the target zone;
(3) Done from low level, so the deficiencies of high-altitude bombing (including the jet stream) don't exist;
(4) It attacks assets that are vital to Japan (ships and fishing boats) as opposed to factories that have already shut down.
Wilmott notes in The Great Crusade, IIRC, that the campaign against refineries had no impact because the campaign destroyed something like four-fifths of the refining capacity that, at the start of the campaign, was using only four percent of capacity.
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2012, 02:10:08 PM
Wilmott notes in The Great Crusade, IIRC, that the campaign against refineries had no impact because the campaign destroyed something like four-fifths of the refining capacity that, at the start of the campaign, was using only four percent of capacity.
Any effect on specialized products like avgas?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 16, 2012, 02:20:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2012, 02:10:08 PM
Wilmott notes in The Great Crusade, IIRC, that the campaign against refineries had no impact because the campaign destroyed something like four-fifths of the refining capacity that, at the start of the campaign, was using only four percent of capacity.
Any effect on specialized products like avgas?
As Grumbler has noted the naval campaign, including the not insignificant submarine success, gutted Japan's ability to ship in raw material.
IIRC the toll on Japans pre-war tanker fleet and the little they manage to build in the war was especially telling.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 16, 2012, 02:20:49 PM
Any effect on specialized products like avgas?
Not that I can recall. He talks about German avgas production, and notes that Eisenhower controlled Eighth AIr Force and Bomber Command for four months before and during Operation Neptune, and his insistence on targeting avgas brought production to a near-halt, but that the Bomber geniuses dropped those packages when they got control of targeting again, and Germany quickly recovered.
For those who haven't read it,
The Great Crusade is an excellent book. Wilmott assumes the reader knew what happened, so doesn't spend much time on what happened, but a lot of time on why it happened and what it meant. Even in the recent revised edition he spends too much time tilting at the windmill of "historians don't give the Soviets enough credit," but he seems otherwise quite balanced in his coverage. It's pretty dense, though - not at all popular history.
One of his big themes is that the Germans and Japanese knew how to conduct campaigns but not how to fight wars, while the reverse was true of the US and Britain (except for the USN in the Pacific, whose campaigns he generally admires). The Soviets started unable to do either but learned to do both, according to him.
Quote from: mongers on April 16, 2012, 03:09:43 PM
As Grumbler has noted the naval campaign, including the not insignificant submarine success, gutted Japan's ability to ship in raw material.
IIRC the toll on Japans pre-war tanker fleet and the little they manage to build in the war was especially telling.
Indeed. What is especially telling is that the Japanese knew what was going to happen to their merchant fleet from prewar wargaming, but changed the assumptions about both American effectiveness and Japan's ability to build, until they showed Japan's shipping surviving through 1944, and then
growing.
They also ignored the fact that 1/3 of their peacetime shipping needs was met by the powers with which they were about to go to war.
Wilmott notes that, by 1945, the Japanese civilian caloric intake was, IIRC, only 5% or so above starvation levels. That also had a huge effect on productivity.
Surprised noone mentioned Willem van Oranje - he executed the only successful invasion of Britain within the relevant time frame. And he was a homo.
Quote from: Martinus on April 16, 2012, 04:29:15 PM
Surprised noone mentioned Willem van Oranje - he executed the only successful invasion of Britain within the relevant time frame.
Not much of an invasion if you are invited. "There was a party! Punch was served!"
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2012, 04:36:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 16, 2012, 04:29:15 PM
Surprised noone mentioned Willem van Oranje - he executed the only successful invasion of Britain within the relevant time frame.
Not much of an invasion if you are invited. "There was a party! Punch was served!"
Well, England has its own sovereign at the time and William came at a head of an army to usurp him. I'd say this is technically a military invasion (and that's how it is referred to by historians, btw).
Some Iraqis also lobbied for the US to invade Iraq - that does not make it a non-invasion.
That's a silly analogy. Also William of Orange didn't fight a British army. He fought the Irish Jacobites and the French.
Quote from: Martinus on April 16, 2012, 04:39:53 PM
Well, England has its own sovereign at the time and William came at a head of an army to usurp him. I'd say this is technically a military invasion (and that's how it is referred to by historians, btw).
Well, England had a Parliament which also claimed a share of the sovereignty and they deposed James II before William took the throne, so I'd say no one was usurped and the troops William brought with him (many of them English) were intended to ensure that the soon-to-be-ex-king stayed ex, so I'd say this was arguably not a military invasion (though I agree that it is often termed an invasion, and for good reason). In any case, the requirement is that the leader "had to have led an army in the field against the British," which William didn't do (there being no field actions in the Glorious revolution).
If the former Edward VIII had opposed the US deployment of troops to Britain in WW2, that would not have made Eisenhower an invader, even to historians. One bad analogy deserves another! :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2012, 04:45:16 PM
That's a silly analogy. Also William of Orange didn't fight a British army. He fought the Irish Jacobites and the French.
They fought the army of the British King. William the I was invited as well. At least he said so.
There was also a battle in the Glorious Revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Reading_(1688) Not a big one, but a battle.
The Battle of the Boyne?
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2012, 02:53:14 PM
The Battle of the Boyne?
Yeah, William fought Irish Jacobites and French soldiers, not a British army.
QuoteWilliam the I was invited as well. At least he said so.
Well that's out of the timeframe. But I also think there's a key difference. Parliament did the inviting and, by that point, that's the representative of Britain/England not whoever happens to have been crowned king. I understand Euros struggling with this, but Americans should get it :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 02:59:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2012, 02:53:14 PM
The Battle of the Boyne?
Yeah, William fought Irish Jacobites and French soldiers, not a British army.
To the best of my knowledge it was a battle between a combined Dutch/Danish army against a French/Irish one. Britain had very little to do with the whole thing apart from being the prize in the contest.
William the Bastard was not invited. He was promised the succession and when that promise was breached he invaded.
Out of the time for the poll perhaps. Did Parliament have the power to dismiss and appoint a King at the time? Presumably Edward the Confessor had the power to legally designate his heir.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2012, 03:04:32 PM
William the Bastard was not invited. He was promised the succession and when that promise was breached he invaded.
Sounds like an invitation. Unless Edward was going to make him king of someplace other then England. I think William had many supporters in England already at that the time. England was already starting to undergo "Normanization".
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2012, 03:10:53 PM
Sounds like an invitation. Unless Edward was going to make him king of someplace other then England. I think William had many supporters in England already at that the time. England was already starting to undergo "Normanization".
Though a surprisng few number of them were actually from Normandy. It seems William recruited pretty widely. I guess: 'Come fight and get a piece of England...oh and the Pope says it is your holy duty' is a good recruiting pitch.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2012, 03:10:53 PM
Sounds like an invitation. Unless Edward was going to make him king of someplace other then England.
I am not sure what you mean Raz. Edward the Confessor first promised the succession and then revoked that promise. If I invite you to my house and then call you and say you are no longer invited, you cannot take the position you continued to be invited in as the police drag you away for trespassing.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2012, 03:08:58 PM
Out of the time for the poll perhaps. Did Parliament have the power to dismiss and appoint a King at the time? Presumably Edward the Confessor had the power to legally designate his heir.
Parliament had just executed a King. Their view was that James had broken the contract between nation and Monarch. He'd therefore vacated the throne because he was no longer a legitimate monarch.
Actually Parliament went through a long debate on their relationship with William. They obviously circumscribed the powers of the executive but a big issue was whether they could be said to be 'electing' or 'acclaiming' a king. They also made the King and all future Kings swear an oath to abide by the laws of England.
I think we do have to take account of English perceptions when we talk about these matters. William the Bastard's invasion was a conquest; Raz is correct about the Normanisation of Saxon England that occured prior to the invasion, but that doesn't alter the fact that people have always counted it as an invasion and conquest. Dutch William was invited, this annoyed certain Jacobites and Irishmen, but for Protestant Englishmen was a triumph.
Now, after William's intervention England devoted herself to fighting the French, which suited Holland of course. But it also suited English public opinion, which had already been upset at Charles II's role as a French pensioner and cut up rough when an overt catholic came to the throne.
Who is William the Bastard? Is he any relation to William the Conqueror?
That's him, bloody bastard taking away our ancient liberties ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 03:26:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2012, 03:08:58 PM
Out of the time for the poll perhaps. Did Parliament have the power to dismiss and appoint a King at the time? Presumably Edward the Confessor had the power to legally designate his heir.
Parliament had just executed a King. Their view was that James had broken the contract between nation and Monarch. He'd therefore vacated the throne because he was no longer a legitimate monarch.
Actually Parliament went through a long debate on their relationship with William. They obviously circumscribed the powers of the executive but a big issue was whether they could be said to be 'electing' or 'acclaiming' a king. They also made the King and all future Kings swear an oath to abide by the laws of England.
I'll take that as a no. They did not have a legal right.
And Just because an invasion is popular with the people (or at least some of them), doesn't mean it wasn't an invasion.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2012, 06:48:42 PM
I'll take that as a no. They did not have a legal right.
I don't know where you'd get that from.
Of course Parliament had the legal right. They executed a King, the acclaimed a King, they established a legal oath for all future monarchs to swear to and they then passed a law regulating what monarchs can and can't do. Given all of that I think it would be absurd to say that they don't also have the right, for example, to depose a King or - which is what they did - to say a King's behaviour has meant he's effectively abdicated.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2012, 03:23:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2012, 03:10:53 PM
Sounds like an invitation. Unless Edward was going to make him king of someplace other then England.
I am not sure what you mean Raz. Edward the Confessor first promised the succession and then revoked that promise. If I invite you to my house and then call you and say you are no longer invited, you cannot take the position you continued to be invited in as the police drag you away for trespassing.
I think the history is a bit iffy on that part. Edward was not alive at the time William conquered England, so a more apt analogy is that you write a will that leaves me all your property. You die, and I come to claim that property. Then some family members of yours claim that the will has been superseded by death bed wish or something like that. At which point I feel duly invited, and land an army of knights to over your house and kill your relatives. Punch was later served.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 06:52:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2012, 06:48:42 PM
I'll take that as a no. They did not have a legal right.
I don't know where you'd get that from.
Of course Parliament had the legal right. They executed a King, the acclaimed a King, they established a legal oath for all future monarchs to swear to and they then passed a law regulating what monarchs can and can't do. Given all of that I think it would be absurd to say that they don't also have the right, for example, to depose a King or - which is what they did - to say a King's behaviour has meant he's effectively abdicated.
I thought they executed the king for raising a rebellion against his own country. There is a difference between "right" and "Might". What did Charles II do? That so violated the laws that parliament would invite foreign invasion?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2012, 07:00:02 PMThere is a difference between "right" and "Might".
Not in the English constitution :P
QuoteWhat did Charles II do? That so violated the laws that parliament would invite foreign invasion?
It was James II. Charles was quite popular. James purged bits of local government, was preparing to pack Parliament, formed a large standing army, prorogued Parliament without its consent and arrested Bishops who refused to carry out his pro-Catholic policies. For a country that had gone to war 40 years earlier to assert Parliament's powers there were enough hints of Charles I to suggest that he had, in 17th century terms, broken covenant between governor and governed.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2012, 06:57:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2012, 03:23:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2012, 03:10:53 PM
Sounds like an invitation. Unless Edward was going to make him king of someplace other then England.
I am not sure what you mean Raz. Edward the Confessor first promised the succession and then revoked that promise. If I invite you to my house and then call you and say you are no longer invited, you cannot take the position you continued to be invited in as the police drag you away for trespassing.
I think the history is a bit iffy on that part. Edward was not alive at the time William conquered England.
But Edward was alive when he breached his promise to William and named Harold as the successor instead. To say William was still invited after that is a bit of a stretch. Its more like someone with a weak claim trying to take the crown by force...
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2012, 09:42:20 PM
But Edward was alive when he breached his promise to William and named Harold as the successor instead.
I do not think Edward did any such thing. Edward hated the Godwins. But it was Harold who promised not Edward wasn't it? The whole religious basis of the invasion was that Harold had perjured himself in front of God, Jesus, and all the Saints.
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2012, 10:00:36 PMI do not think Edward did any such thing. Edward hated the Godwins. But it was Harold who promised not Edward wasn't it? The whole religious basis of the invasion was that Harold had perjured himself in front of God, Jesus, and all the Saints.
That was my understanding too. I don't think Edward invited William. Harold swore on the relics of a Saint not to pursue his claim and then did.
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2012, 10:00:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2012, 09:42:20 PM
But Edward was alive when he breached his promise to William and named Harold as the successor instead.
I do not think Edward did any such thing. Edward hated the Godwins. But it was Harold who promised not Edward wasn't it? The whole religious basis of the invasion was that Harold had perjured himself in front of God, Jesus, and all the Saints.
You might not think so, but there are a fair number of acedemics who disagree with you. It makes sense that Edward promised the succession to William during his dispute with the Godwins (and their banishment) in return for William's support. But after the Godwin's return from banishment and particularly after Harold and the rest of the Godwins controlled most of England it no longer made any sense to keep such a promise. There is also some doubt that there was an actual promise made to William and that William simply seized on a misunderstanding, wilfully or not, to justify his attempt at the crown.
It also does not make any sense that Harold swore to uphold the claim of William. There was no reason for him to do so either before, during or after the banishment of his house. There is some indication that this is simply a piece of propoganda created after the successful invasion. After all, when one steals a crown, one must have some justification for doing so.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2012, 10:55:23 PM
It also does not make any sense that Harold swore to uphold the claim of William. There was no reason for him to do so either before, during or after the banishment of his house. There is some indication that this is simply a piece of propoganda created after the successful invasion. After all, when one steals a crown, one must have some justification for doing so.
Wasn't it because he was a 'guest' of William?
Though no doubt it could have been propaganda.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 07:12:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2012, 07:00:02 PMThere is a difference between "right" and "Might".
Not in the English constitution :P
QuoteWhat did Charles II do? That so violated the laws that parliament would invite foreign invasion?
It was James II. Charles was quite popular. James purged bits of local government, was preparing to pack Parliament, formed a large standing army, prorogued Parliament without its consent and arrested Bishops who refused to carry out his pro-Catholic policies. For a country that had gone to war 40 years earlier to assert Parliament's powers there were enough hints of Charles I to suggest that he had, in 17th century terms, broken covenant between governor and governed.
Sorry, got my Stuarts mixed up for a moment. Did the whole of parliament vote to invite William to land on their shores with a foreign army?
Warning, Will Robinson! Danger!
Don't go there, Sheilbh. It's a rathole. Trust me. :cool:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 10:59:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2012, 10:55:23 PM
It also does not make any sense that Harold swore to uphold the claim of William. There was no reason for him to do so either before, during or after the banishment of his house. There is some indication that this is simply a piece of propoganda created after the successful invasion. After all, when one steals a crown, one must have some justification for doing so.
Wasn't it because he was a 'guest' of William?
The timing of when Edward gave his "promise" is a bit confused - which is one of the things that makes it a bit suspect. I have seen some references to when William visited Edward and others when William hosted Edward.
For what it is worth here is what wiki has to say about it
QuoteHistorians have puzzled over Edward's intentions for the succession since William of Malmesbury in the early twelfth century. One school of thought supports the Norman case that Edward always intended William the Conqueror to be his heir, accepting the medieval claim that Edward had already decided to be celibate before he married, but most historians believe that he hoped to have an heir by Edith at least until his quarrel with Godwin in 1051. William may have visited Edward during Godwin's exile, and he is thought to have promised William the succession at this time, but historians disagree how seriously he meant the promise, and whether he later changed his mind.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2012, 06:12:44 AM
Warning, Will Robinson! Danger!
Don't go there, Sheilbh. It's a rathole. Trust me. :cool:
The danger is venturing down rabbit holes made by the Grumbler.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 10:59:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2012, 10:55:23 PM
It also does not make any sense that Harold swore to uphold the claim of William. There was no reason for him to do so either before, during or after the banishment of his house. There is some indication that this is simply a piece of propoganda created after the successful invasion. After all, when one steals a crown, one must have some justification for doing so.
Wasn't it because he was a 'guest' of William?
Though no doubt it could have been propaganda.
My understanding is that the promise was essentially extorted from Harold. Also, the oath was sworn over hidden relics concealed from Harold until after the oath was sworn - and that's in the "official" Norman version. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on April 18, 2012, 12:15:21 PM
My understanding is that the promise was essentially extorted from Harold. Also, the oath was sworn over hidden relics concealed from Harold until after the oath was sworn - and that's in the "official" Norman version. :lol:
You don't rule Normandy by being fair.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2012, 11:33:59 AM
The danger is venturing down rabbit holes made by the Grumbler.
Just because your straw men keep stumbling and falling down after encountering rabbit holes, don't blame
me for existence of the holes; blame yourself for the existence of the straw men. The holes have been there all along. :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2012, 12:20:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2012, 11:33:59 AM
The danger is venturing down rabbit holes made by the Grumbler.
Just because your straw men keep stumbling and falling down after encountering rabbit holes, don't blame me for existence of the holes; blame yourself for the existence of the straw men. The holes have been there all along. :cool:
Silly Rabbit.
Quote from: Malthus on April 18, 2012, 12:15:21 PM
and that's in the "official" Norman version. :lol:
I guess there were enough people in England who would have realized Harold would never have sworn such an oath that the Normans realized some story had to be created to explain such rather odd behaviour.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 12:16:15 PM
You don't rule Normandy by being fair.
:huh: Normandy was part of the realm of the Philip the Fair. Can't get much more fair than having "the fair" as your nickname.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2012, 12:27:03 PM
I guess there were enough people in England who would have realized Harold would never have sworn such an oath that the Normans realized some story had to be created to explain such rather odd behaviour.
The story was concoted though for French and Papal consumption not English consumption. It was the reason William was able to get his support.
I am not clear why you seem so determined to show the story was concoted later to justify something to the Saxons.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2012, 12:27:12 PM
:huh: Normandy was part of the realm of the Philip the Fair. Can't get much more fair than having "the fair" as your nickname.
Different sort of fair :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2012, 11:32:53 AM
For what it is worth here is what wiki has to say about it
QuoteHistorians have puzzled over Edward's intentions for the succession since William of Malmesbury in the early twelfth century. One school of thought supports the Norman case that Edward always intended William the Conqueror to be his heir, accepting the medieval claim that Edward had already decided to be celibate before he married, but most historians believe that he hoped to have an heir by Edith at least until his quarrel with Godwin in 1051. William may have visited Edward during Godwin's exile, and he is thought to have promised William the succession at this time, but historians disagree how seriously he meant the promise, and whether he later changed his mind.
And Harold's page says this, so clearly wiki isn't very useful on this:
QuoteIn 1064, Harold was apparently shipwrecked in Ponthieu. There is much speculation about this voyage. The earliest post-conquest Norman chroniclers report that at some prior time, Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury had been sent by King Edward to appoint as his heir Edward's maternal kinsman, William of Normandy, and that at this later date Harold was sent to swear fealty. Scholars disagree as to the reliability of this story. William, at least, seems to have believed he had been offered the succession, but there must have been some confusion either on William's part or perhaps by both men, since the English succession was neither inherited nor determined by the sitting monarch. Instead the Witenagemot, the assembly of the kingdom's leading notables, would convene after a king's death to select a successor. Other acts of Edward are inconsistent with his having made such a promise, such as his efforts to return his nephew Edward the Exile, son of king Edmund Ironside, from Hungary in 1057. Later Norman chroniclers suggest alternative explanations for Harold's journey, that he was seeking the release of members of his family who had been held hostage since Godwin's exile in 1051, or even that he had simply been travelling along the English coast on a hunting and fishing expedition and had been driven across the channel by an unexpected storm. There is general agreement that he left from Bosham, and was blown off course, landing on the coast of Ponthieu. He was captured by Count Guy I of Ponthieu, and was then taken hostage to the count's castle at Beaurain, 24 1/2 km up the River Canche from where it meets the English Channel at what is now Le Touquet. Duke William arrived soon after and ordered Guy to turn Harold over to him. Harold then apparently accompanied William to battle against William's enemy, Conan II, Duke of Brittany. While crossing into Brittany past the fortified abbey of Mont St Michel, Harold is recorded as rescuing two of William's soldiers from the quicksand. They pursued Conan from Dol de Bretagne to Rennes, and finally to Dinan, where he surrendered the fortress's keys on the point of a lance. William presented Harold with weapons and arms, knighting him. The Bayeux Tapestry, and other Norman sources, then record that Harold swore an oath on sacred relics to William to support his claim to the English throne. After Harold's death, the Normans were quick to point out that in accepting the crown of England, Harold had perjured himself of this alleged oath.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 12:30:11 PM
The story was concoted though for French and Papal consumption not English consumption. It was the reason William was able to get his support.
I am not clear why you seem so determined to show the story was concoted later to justify something to the Saxons.
Indeed. One wonders what the motive was for including the "hidden relics" tidbit; it seems unnecessary.
When I learned about the battle of Hastings as a child, the story about the oath didn't ring true, it reminded me of the sort of lie other children told to 'justify' them stealing something or that it always/really belonged to them.
Quote from: mongers on April 18, 2012, 01:22:42 PM
When I learned about the battle of Hastings as a child, the story about the oath didn't ring true, it reminded me of the sort of lie other children told to 'justify' them stealing something or that it always/really belonged to them.
Well the Godwin family had a similarly weak story. Really the only person that, by monarchy standards anyway, had a good claim to the throne was Edgar Atheling but he was young and had no soldiers to back him up.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 12:30:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2012, 12:27:03 PM
I guess there were enough people in England who would have realized Harold would never have sworn such an oath that the Normans realized some story had to be created to explain such rather odd behaviour.
The story was concoted though for French and Papal consumption not English consumption. It was the reason William was able to get his support.
I am not clear why you seem so determined to show the story was concoted later to justify something to the Saxons.
I am not sure why you think Saxons who new a more blatant story was untrue would not have influenced French or Papal opinion. Even a big lie has to have some grounding in plausability. If even the most easily influenced would have understood a person in Harold's position would never have willingly sworn the oath then of course some trick needs to explain all that away.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2012, 02:43:23 PM
I am not sure why you think Saxons who new a more blatant story was untrue would not have influenced French or Papal opinion. Even a big lie has to have some grounding in plausability. If even the most easily influenced would have understood a person in Harold's position would never have willingly sworn the oath then of course some trick needs to explain all that away.
So if Hardrada had won he would have felt the need of inventing some story to win over the Saxons? Besides the Saxons did not need a convincing story, they accepted the Godwin's claim that Edward had appointed Harold his successor on his deathbed.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 12:16:15 PM
You don't rule Normandy by being fair.
That's Ed Anger's approach.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 02:48:55 PM
So if Hardrada had won he would have felt the need of inventing some story to win over the Saxons? Besides the Saxons did not need a convincing story, they accepted the Godwin's claim that Edward had appointed Harold his successor on his deathbed.
I have no idea what you are on about. This is either the worst analogy since the last time Marti posted here or you have lost the thread of the conversation.
Focus on this part. The Norman's themselves say Harold was tricked. Why was that?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2012, 03:26:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 02:48:55 PM
So if Hardrada had won he would have felt the need of inventing some story to win over the Saxons? Besides the Saxons did not need a convincing story, they accepted the Godwin's claim that Edward had appointed Harold his successor on his deathbed.
I have no idea what you are on about. This is either the worst analogy since the last time Marti posted here or you have lost the thread of the conversation.
Focus on this part. The Norman's themselves say Harold was tricked. Why was that?
Well, to be fair, he was "tricked" about there being relics, not into making the oath in the first place (according to the "Offical Norman" version).
I guess the Normans' point being he was willing to swear falsely - and the Normans knew it - but they "tricked" him into making a much more solemly-religiously binding oath than he intended.
A sort of 'if he had nothing to hide, he shouldn't be bothered by it' approach.
Anyway, it is pretty obvious that if he made such an oath it was hardly willing. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2012, 03:26:05 PM
I have no idea what you are on about. This is either the worst analogy since the last time Marti posted here or you have lost the thread of the conversation.
Focus on this part. The Norman's themselves say Harold was tricked. Why was that?
I was not making an analogy at all. My whole point was that there was no need, once he won, to justify anything. He only had this oath thing to get the French and the Church on his side.
They did so to show how clever William was to fool the dastardly Harold, who was going to lie to him, to seal his false oath with holy relics.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 03:39:42 PM
My whole point was that there was no need, once he won, to justify anything. He only had this oath thing to get the French and the Church on his side.
Wait a minute, he didnt have to justify anything but he had to get the French and Church "on his side". Seems to me that requires him to produce a justification. ;)
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2012, 06:12:44 AM
Warning, Will Robinson! Danger!
Don't go there, Sheilbh. It's a rathole. Trust me. :cool:
It's nice to know you still fear my debating skills.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2012, 04:23:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 03:39:42 PM
My whole point was that there was no need, once he won, to justify anything. He only had this oath thing to get the French and the Church on his side.
Wait a minute, he didnt have to justify anything but he had to get the French and Church "on his side". Seems to me that requires him to produce a justification. ;)
Wait a minute, Valmy qualified his statement with "once he won" and you ignored that. I wonder why? ;)
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2012, 05:37:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2012, 04:23:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 03:39:42 PM
My whole point was that there was no need, once he won, to justify anything. He only had this oath thing to get the French and the Church on his side.
Wait a minute, he didnt have to justify anything but he had to get the French and Church "on his side". Seems to me that requires him to produce a justification. ;)
Wait a minute, Valmy qualified his statement with "once he won" and you ignored that. I wonder why? ;)
Wait a minute, I didnt ignore it at all. Go back down your hole silly rabbit.
Valmy, the timing matters not one whit. At some point, whether it is before or after, you say he needed to get the French and the Church on his side. Seems to me that requires him to produce a justification. That justification was the oath which even the Normans say required a trick.
The trick is required presumably because everyone knew a story that Harold had consented to such a thing would be incredible.
[Myth alert]
The Normans were 'our' Mongols. :bowler:
[/Myth alert]
Any statues? :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2012, 06:07:54 PM
Any statues? :hmm:
Lord no. Who would commemorate such a monster? :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2012, 06:14:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2012, 06:07:54 PM
Any statues? :hmm:
Lord no. Who would commemorate such a monster? :blink:
That's weird, you'd think there would be one somewhere ? unsure.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2012, 06:14:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2012, 06:07:54 PM
Any statues? :hmm:
Lord no. Who would commemorate such a monster? :blink:
Having pigeons shit on his likeness for all eternity seems appropriate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2012, 06:14:35 PM
Lord no. Who would commemorate such a monster? :blink:
But...but....he ended slavery in England!
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 11:51:33 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2012, 06:14:35 PM
Lord no. Who would commemorate such a monster? :blink:
But...but....he ended slavery in England!
Is that true? I know that slavery essentially ended under Norman rule, but I didn't know that William ended it. It's not always clear when discussing slavery. Some chronicles use "Slave" and "serf" interchangeably.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 12:09:48 AM
Is that true? I know that slavery essentially ended under Norman rule, but I didn't know that William ended it. It's not always clear when discussing slavery. Some chronicles use "Slave" and "serf" interchangeably.
That was tongue in cheek. Before conquest there were slaves and afterwards no slaves. But really that is a bit of a technicality.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2012, 06:02:56 PM
Wait a minute, I didnt ignore it at all. Go back down your hole silly rabbit.
Wait a minute, you are still ignoring it! :lmfao: Weaseling is still ignoring.
Personal attacks get you nowhere and just make you look immature, BTW. Probably best to keep your eye on the ball. ;)
QuoteValmy, the timing matters not one whit.
Mere assertion, and unsupported by even common reasoning. Timing was all-important, as he was a Christian lord proposing to attack another Christian lord.
QuoteAt some point, whether it is before or after, you say he needed to get the French and the Church on his side.
No. Read his statement again. He notes that, before William won, he needed to have the church and France on his side. This is true. The Pope had to sign off on the justification for one Christian lord to attack another with whom he had no existing grievance. William created that grievance, and so got papal blessing. From the French, William needed to recruit men and leaders.
Once William won, of course, he no longer needed to justify his actions; he was be the king, and kings can do shit because they want to.
QuoteSeems to me that requires him to produce a justification. That justification was the oath which even the Normans say required a trick.
That was needed for the Pope and the French king, but not for the Saxons. Thus, as Valmy noted, before the invasion but not after it.
I guess that means Grumbler is a really big weasel since he ignores most of my posts.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 08:54:12 AM
I guess that means Grumbler is a really big weasel since he ignores most of my posts.
I'm pretty sure he ignores all of them, what with you being on his "Ignore" list.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 09:15:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 08:54:12 AM
I guess that means Grumbler is a really big weasel since he ignores most of my posts.
I'm pretty sure he ignores all of them, what with you being on his "Ignore" list.
Sometimes he responds indirectly. It's really kinda funny the way he gets all passive aggressive.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 09:23:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 09:15:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 08:54:12 AM
I guess that means Grumbler is a really big weasel since he ignores most of my posts.
I'm pretty sure he ignores all of them, what with you being on his "Ignore" list.
Sometimes he responds indirectly.
Your quotes in others' posts still show.
Yeah, I know. I still find it funny. I'm also amused that he wants everyone else to ignore me. I guess I really got to him. He must take his trolling seriously. Poor Grumbler.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 09:41:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 09:23:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 09:15:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 08:54:12 AM
I guess that means Grumbler is a really big weasel since he ignores most of my posts.
I'm pretty sure he ignores all of them, what with you being on his "Ignore" list.
Sometimes he responds indirectly.
Your quotes in others' posts still show.
Yes, unfortunately. :(
Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2012, 06:40:21 AM
Mere assertion, and unsupported by even common reasoning.
You should say that to yourself more often. It might reduce some of your trolls. Now, once again, back in your hole.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 19, 2012, 11:01:57 AM
You should say that to yourself more often. It might reduce some of your trolls. Now, once again, back in your hole.
What's your obsession with the personal attacks? I know you want to demonstrate that you are out of intellectual arguments, but you could indicate that by just not posting.
Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2012, 11:21:35 AM
What's your obsession with the personal attacks? [/quote]
:lol:
Thanks that gave me a good laugh.