Hmm, OT, but still: it's true that there were cities that opposed the NSDAP. We shouldn't forget that the Nazis actually reached a 43,9% in the last Election for the Reichstag; that means they were the biggest party but only took over due to a coaltion with the conservative party DNVP.bigdummy wrote:Yes I think up to World War II, the German Hanse cities tended to think of themselves as linked to other Northern European towns and were much more international in their outlook, and sympathetic to England and Holland for example, than to say, Bavaria. Lubeck and Cologne and a few other towns wouldn't let Hitler speak in the early 1930's, Hamburg, Bremen, Straslund and Cologne and several other old Hanse cities were considered enemies by the Nazis. Hitler passed a special law against them when he took power, removing the last of their Rights of autonomy (and their right to call themselves Free cities).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/cityb ... itler.html
It's ironic that by a cruel trick of geogrpahy they happened to also by the towns most easily in range of English and American bombers after the Nazis took over.
Wolfgang Ritter wrote:The greater Hamburg act of 1937 was more of a restructure of overcome borders, but not that much a politically motivated revenge.
The modern federal states of Germany were explicitely restructured by the Allied Gouvernment after 1945; something like the modern federal states of Northrine-Westfalia, RHineland-Palatinate and even my own Hessen never existed as acounty, dominion, state, realm or whatever in history before the end of WW II. We have still quite a confusing mixture of federal states/administrative areas etc. in Germany after WW I and the abolition of monarchy.
bigdummy wrote:Certainly Richard I did pretty well during his Crusade in the 12th Century, though I think he relied on Crossbows a lot. Did he use Longbows?
admin wrote: English archery was not revolutionary because of the bows, but rather because of the bowmen themselves. Compare it with riding skill in horse-based cultures or sniping ability amongst the Boers of South Africa. Archery was a way of life in England at that time.
There was a reason that English bowmen were spoken about all over Europe with such respect, paid higher wages as merceneries, and people like the Burgundians tried to copy them. It wasn't because they were just 'fairly good'. They were considered exceptional in their time.
And this is nothing to do with national pride, but hard facts. I mostly practice knightly arts these days, rather than archery, and English men at arms were considered mediocre at best. The Battle of the 30 was a resounding defeat for English knighthood.
I don't think the English were percieved as "mediocre' Knights by any means, the French were just particularly good cavalry, everyone is good at something after all...
Thearos wrote:I note from one of BD's post that Jean le Maingre was in Prussia at the same time as Bolingbroke-- is this not the same Boucicault who 25 years later was at Agincourt ? I.e. Boucicault actually even had a chance to see English longbowmen in action while fighting on the same side, and drew no special teaching or conclusion from it.
Thearos wrote:I also note, from skimming narrative histories of the Swiss at war in the C15th, that they in fact did have a knightly class and high-bourgeoisie, who fought on horseback and in armour, as heavy or light cavalry, and produced the "officer class". I wonder if this class is well experienced in warfare, tactics, and good leadership.
When do the Swiss move from the halberd to the pike ?
Wolfgang Ritter wrote:Don't mistake the term "confederation" for a sort of republican structure of the state. Of course there was nobility and high-bourgeoise citizens in the conglomerate nowadays known as Switzerland; very much alike the rest of Europe. The "oath" of the early union around 1291 IIRC between the cantons of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden was of course an opposition to the aristicratic Savoye and Habsburg. But nevertheless it was a sort of union which not uncommon in the late medievals, the outcome decades later was very different.
My knowledge is that infantry units consisting of solely one type of weapons - like a -pikeblock - appear in the last quarter of th 15th ct, but are primarily a 16th ct thing.
Nevertheless you still have a mixture of weapons then, only differently grouped in battle order. The spanish tertio shows the different type of grouping compared to the earlier blocks ("Gewalthaufen" would be the german term) which were using more ranks into the depth of the formation; being a very rigid force, but difficult to move in fast maneouvers or flankturns.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests