|
|
Post by American hist on Feb 3, 2024 22:27:37 GMT
This is a thread we’re we ask miscellaneous questions about subjects that probably don’t deserve a full section.
One example would be did the French Calvary see action during the Crimean War ? Answer they didn’t they were deployed to Russia however
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 4, 2024 8:30:28 GMT
This is a thread we’re we ask miscellaneous questions about subjects that probably don’t deserve a full section. One example would be did the French Calvary see action during the Crimean War ? Answer they didn’t they were deployed to Russia however |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Feb 4, 2024 22:11:36 GMT
Did the British naval Brigade Camel corps see any action outside the Sudan theater ? Did these soldiers even exist? I’ve tried looking them up with no avail. If they didn’t exist, and they were in the Sudan theater, please tell me the battle of the participated at. Gordon’s relief force did have Egyptian camels units. However, the Egyptian camel soldiers were mostly just used for the communication purposes. The only information I have about them is from Armies In Plastic .
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Mar 31, 2024 18:56:10 GMT
Another history question I would like to ask could the German ww2 tanks such as the panther, tiger tank have been designed or built better? The problem is the engine because the German engine for the tiger tank is too small or such a big vehicle.
What were some of the light tanks in World War II that the infantry could take out?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 31, 2024 19:01:13 GMT
Another history question I would like to ask could the German ww2 tanks such as the panther, tiger tank have been designed or built better? The problem is the engine because the German engine for the tiger tank is too small or such a big vehicle. My take, it does not matter if the German World War II tanks where better than the Allied/Soviet once, numbers count, the German lost in that fight. |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Mar 31, 2024 19:05:51 GMT
Well yes. This is a history question. Not really a alternative history question. Thank you very much for answering this.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jul 10, 2024 19:28:16 GMT
I have made this thread for people to ask historical questions that need to be answered. I shall ask a great question: what incentives would they be to side with the royalists during the English Civil War?
The parliamentarian forces are remembered in history as the good guys, at least at the start of the conflict.
In British politics in the 1700s, what would the incentives be to vote Tory and not Whig? If someone wished me to campaign on Andrew Jackson's ideology or convince people to prefer their party's ideals, I could do that,but it is not what I am asking of course
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jul 10, 2024 21:17:46 GMT
Someone might have found that the Puritans were hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jul 11, 2024 2:45:12 GMT
Mr max I appreciate you commenting. it’s not bad I to have a strong king after all much of world history the reason why kingdoms collapsed or grew weak was over a weak king. This is a complicated time in English history for religion because in many ways the church of England was very similar to the Catholic faith. I have actually gone to a traditional Anglican service and it is no wonder why many people in the south who even have the opportunity to go to church found the lack of appeal.
In the United States we hade separation between The Church of State and the king of England traditional was to be the head of England’s church.
The Puritans wanted to purify the church of England so there would be many Anglicans who could be upset and worried of what the Puritans will do in office. Legally the king did have power to dissolve parliament but it is parliament who holds the strings of the purse. People are free to correct my English Civil War history as I need to re-study the subject
However I think that is fair that Parliament should meet at least three years. I do remember the king did want to negotiate with Parliament after a while and Parliament wasn’t going to listen. Executing a king goes far and the difference in the French revolution was king Louis deserted his people directly. While I’m not going to call King Charlesa peoples populist he did see himself as a shepherd of the British people.
(Disclaimer)
I’m not a a monarchist and the American revolution gave Americans to think of kings Badly. However during the colonial period of America Americans thought fondly of kings and this is perhaps best shown with a desire for the monarchy was when Oliver Cromwell made himself a king mr. lord protector . At least Catholics had hopes for Charles that he would restore their right to worship God.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 11, 2024 15:16:33 GMT
Religion definitely played a part but the primary issue for most of the rebels I believe was the behaviour of Charles I. There was a system in place that gave Parliament powers to restrain the monarchy and Charles was seeking to bypass that. For several year - about a decade IIRC he sought to rule without Parliament but since the latter was necessary to raise new taxes he was ultimately required to recall it. He had tried to abuse traditional taxes that didn't require Parliamentary approval such as Ship Tax - which caused huge resentment.
Actually while the English Civil war [ECW] is the most well know and because it had such an impact on British history and political development, England was the last kingdom to rebel against Charles. When things finally came to a head in England there were already rebellions in Ireland - predominantly by the Catholic majority - and in Scotland - largely by the Scottish Presbyterians who religious were at least as extreme in their religious views as the English Puritans. In fact the reason Charles was forced to recall Parliament was because an initial attempt to suppress the revolt in Scotland had failed and he needed additional money to raise a new army for that purpose.
The ECW was bitterly fought and either side could have won it but eventually Parliament came out on top. Even then there were attempts to come to terns with Charles, simply because the status of the monarchy and respect for it was so deeply ingrained in English society. However Charles, who had surrendered to the Scottish Kirk refused any such agreement that limited his powers and he made a deal with the Scottish Presbyterians who had overcome royalists inside Scotland by which the latter would raise an army to invade England and impose both Charles and the Scottish Kirk on England - which would have been an highly unstable alliance because the two had such opposing viewpoints. This led to the so called 2nd English Civil War in which royalist uprising and a Scottish invasion were both defeated. Charles was captured again and it was this 2nd conflict that prompted Parliament - despite concerns about its legality because of the widely held view of royalty being divinely appointed - to have Charles tried and then executed.
The cycle then repeated because Charles's eldest son was recognised by the Scots and Charles II and similar made a deal with them for a new invasion of England which resulted in the Anglo-Scottish War in 1650-52. Again the Royalists and Scots were defeated and Charles II fled to France.
To be fair this was the 3rd intervention in English affairs by the Scots in this period as their 1st one was in 1644 when, fearing that Charles would win in England and having defeated their own royalists the Scots sided with the Parliamentarians in northern England and played a significant role in the victory over Charles's forces at Marston Moor.
Anyway a bit more background on the conflict. Personally while definitely not a supporter of any religious authoritarian tendencies I'm glad that Parliament won as a royalist victory would have sent back Britain development considerably by cementing royal absolute power. Britain could well have ended up with a British ancient regime which would have been bad both for Britain's internal development but also its abilities to defend those islands against French and other oppositions. You might have seen say a markedly more brutal suppression of Irish Catholicism in Ireland and at some stage an equivalent of the French revolution - which of course might or might not be successful and could like many other rebellions against autocratic monarchs themselves ended up becoming dictatorial. A strong and skilled king is a valuable role in a clearly monarchistic state but Charles was not such a king and royal power already had enough checks on it that the sort of autocracy Charles desired couldn't be achieved without considerable repression.
Corrected a small typo.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jul 12, 2024 1:33:03 GMT
Thank you, Steven. It's really hard to defend King Charles because he was at fault. However, in the first round of the English Civil War, the Royalists were in the wrong, from my perspective. The king doesn't have to surrender to parliament; he doesn't even have to cooperate with parliament until he breaks the British constitution.
From a colonist perspective, the colonies should stay neutral as many royalist sympathizers and roundheads prefer living side by side, including in the Caribbean and even in the South. Virgina politically remained loyal to the king. It is the New England Purtians were are willing to send soldiers off to fight for Cromwell they would mater show agresion throughout the American colonies such as in Maryland
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 12, 2024 10:20:06 GMT
Thank you, Steven. It's really hard to defend King Charles because he was at fault. However, in the first round of the English Civil War, the Royalists were in the wrong, from my perspective. The king doesn't have to surrender to parliament; he doesn't even have to cooperate with parliament until he breaks the British constitution. From a colonist perspective, the colonies should stay neutral as many royalist sympathizers and roundheads prefer living side by side, including in the Caribbean and even in the South. Virgina politically remained loyal to the king. It is the New England Purtians were are willing to send soldiers off to fight for Cromwell they would mater show agresion throughout the American colonies such as in Maryland
As I understand it Charles surrendered because he had no alternative with his armies defeated and largely destroyed. Not sure why he decided to do so to the Scots rather than the English, possibly he thinks that he had a better chance of continuing to press his case from unhindered rule.
The English and hence to a large degree the British constitution is famously unwritten in that there isn't a fully written constitution but a collection of rules and precedents built up over the centuries. As such it would be a matter of opinion when he broke the constitute while as a king ruling by divine right his argument was that his will was the deciding factor in all things.
At the time the colonies were too far away to really have an impact due to the difficulties of traveling. Hadn't heard of any Puritans traveling from New England to fight for Parliament but suppose some of them might. Did read a long while ago that some of the southern colonies, specially Virginia I think supported the king until a military force arrived from England although think they then capitulated without fighting. At the time the colonies were still too dependent on support from the homeland and vulnerable to both local Indian and other foreign threats to really consider anything else.
Maryland, being the only colony specifically established by Catholics would have been the most vulnerable to potential persecution by a Protestant Parliament, as they might be from a Protestant king. Sounds like some level of this happened from intruding New England Puritans. Can you supply an details please?
|
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Jul 12, 2024 17:22:33 GMT
How well trained and equipped was the IJA during ww2, compared to other major powers? It surely was lacking in tanks and anti tank weaponry but was it also lacking in other areas?
|
|
