Non European forces proving themselves Vs European military might

celtan · 22nd January 2009, 12:55 AM

Gonzalo, take it easy, don't get emotionally invested in a subject that only deserves unemotional discussion.

We are all here a bunch of friends and arm-chair historians. We should be able to discuss any and all military history subjects coolly. Our interest is in weapon collecting, and we need to be able to discuss history dispassionately in order to understand the origins and natures of the items we collect.

I haven't brought politics to this discussion. If you check, what I'm arguing is the universality of war itself, and the different excuses used to justify same, when in truth the main reason is economics, disguised
as religion or nationalism.

The basic conduct that we characterize as war has even bee been observed in apes, where they make concerted efforts to attack competing, or merely weaker adjacent ape groups. To deny its existence doesn't change the facts.

Regarding Lidice, that was a cheap shot. If you check my comments yesterday, I clearly state "...Czechoslovakia, Russia and Pomerania". Yet those are not the only places where such things happened, only the more widely known. And even if I were geographically confused, it wouldn't add anything to the subject, so that point is moot.

The French "resistance" was utterly ineffective, it was widely held to be _mostly_ a bunch of thieves using the excuse of patriotism to steal and kill people against which they had personal issues. The "resistance"
basically filled the vacuum left by the german forces on their retreat, here and there killing an isolated german soldier trying to get away, or surrendered prisoners, very brave indeed. They mostly victimized their own country men, or more exactly, country-women. Just watch the movie reels of that era, their behavior was sickening even to the newly arrived allied forces.

Regarding the burnings of jewish conquistadores. No, I don't know anything about it, but certainly would like to learn more.

Colon/Columbus himself was a Catalonian Jew, as were many members of his crew. America was intended to be the new Israel, which explains the economical backing obtained from Jewish Bankers, both converts and practicing. The Spanish Crown evicted Jews from their territories unless they converted to Christianity. As such, they were forbidden to colonize America, although many came over as converts. In those
days, if a forbidden colony was found, they were usually razed to the ground. All european powers did the same.

If you intended that as some sort of attack on Spain, let me remind you that Inquisition burnings after _two centuries_ numbered about 2000 (They kept inmaculate records). In only one year, medieval germans burned more that 100,000 witches at the stake. So you see, it's all a matter of perspective. All european powers behaved quite savagely according to modern standards, but comparatively speaking, Spain was a little kid.

In America, Mexican chichimecas engaged in the continuous "Wars Of The Flowers", where they would attack even friendly american nations just to get prisoners, this for continuous sacrifices in honor of the sun-god. Millions of americans were assasinated because of that horrible custom. That places the Aztecs on the same playing ground as the Nazis, the Turks and Stalinist Russia.

To gain proper perspective: Compare the Inquisition burnings _four centuries ago_ to modern Mexico. Just in the city of Nuevo Laredo, the "business" between Zetas, Sinaloas and the corrupt Federales kills more than that in a single year. They actually _burn their victims alive_ in drums filled with fuel. This practice is known as "el asado". At least the Inquisition (Spanish version, not the German or Italian, which were far more sanguine) usually executed their victims before burning them.
And that's _only one_ city of 21st Century Mexico. You see Gonzalo, I am very familiar with your country and its history, including the "Cristeros" and late 20th C. "Indiadas". Let's keep things civil, shall we?

The problem with Central and South America is that after the "Spaniards" "yoke was removed, they placed on themselves the Maya, the Inca, and the Chichimeca-Aztec yokes, which were far, far heavier than that of the Spanish.

The original American societies were extremely power-centered, very authoritarian regimes where european individuality had no place, which is exactly what the new creole rulers like Bolivar, Iturbide and Santa-Ana
wanted. As a result, these societies reverted to type (after all, most of their populations were and are ethnic-american), while European Spain, with a thousandth of the means and population of the New Spain, went on to become a First World Power again. So, perhaps the only thing evident is that European civilization is more effective that the Latinoamerican version, with its caciqueal undertones.

I didn't judge either Germans nor Israel's militaries, they did and do as they are forced to do, as did the Spanish in 39'. My point is that regular military forces are less brutal, less criminal if you will, than the motley groups that characterize guerrillas. Not perfect, mind you, just less evil.

Empires come and go, and their rulers don't care whether the rest of the world likes them or not. That's a fact. Propaganda? I have no reason to preach any, and no interest either. I'm deeply offended that you suggest so.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 83?, many documents surfaced, proving among other things the plans for an inmediate subsequent invasion of Europe with Tank Regiments in 1945'. In fact, the fighting between Allies and Russians had already started, including air-to-air open combat, inprisonment of allied military advisers within Russia, as well as of allied prisoners "liberated" from German camps within the Russian zones. The Russians became so bold as to even snatch allied soldiers in broad daylight from allied held zones.

Other documents reveal that part of the terrible acts committed during the Spanish civil war by both sides were in fact provoked by Russian agents in Spain. Some nights they would capture and kill notable members from the Nationalist side while dressed and acting as Republicans, the next they'd do the same to the Republicans but dressed and acting as Nationalists, that's what set the bloody ball rolling. These documents proved without a shadow of a doubt that the Russian assistance was part of a plan to make Spain a communist satellite country, and that Russia had no interest in preserving the Republic at all. These are not "Propaganda", just verifiable facts.

You don't believe in the "Armenian Genocide"? What about the more modern "Jewish Holocaust"? Of the former, you can find significant amounts of literature, specially interesting if it's true it did never happened. Just check http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armeni.../gen_bib1.html.

Please understand that these subjects hold no particularly relevance to me, and the arguments posited do not directly affect me, nor I do I have any vested interests or views on any of them. Neither do I claim to be the holder of the ultimate truths about anything. Heck, I might be wrong about everything! But by entertaining other views, we grow as thinking, reasoning beings.

Lastly, I don't want to create further polemics, we share our thoughts and beliefs on this forum out of sheer fun. I think this discussion has ceased to be a pleasant exchange of ideas. So, let's simply agree to disagree on some of the posted issues. I will not write further comments on this issue, for me the matter is closed.

After all, we are all friends here.

Best regards,

Manuel

BTW: In combat, European fencing and stabbing usually trounces slashing Katanas. : )

Jim McDougall · 22nd January 2009, 06:12 AM

You guys have an amazing command of geopolitical and military history, and philosophical discussions can easily get out of control, lets keep the discussion worthwhile .Its like armchair history 101, and great learnimg stuff. While our focus here is on arms and armour, the perspective here is certainly interesting as I have noted.
Caution OK!

All the best,
Jim

Gonzalo G · 22nd January 2009, 11:14 AM

Sorry, Manolo, but I´m not emotionally invested. It is not the subject of the discussion what bothers me, but the lack of references to valid sources, the repetition of common already discredited myths, the confussion of concepts, and the fact that I would feel disrespectful mentioning some subjects here, as we are only guests in a forum where there are people from diverse countries, and sombody could feel disturbed. This is the reason I pointed that the subject of the jews was gratuitous and off-topic, and only mentioned the role of the jews and spaniards in the conquest and colonization of Mexico just to show it.

No, I was not intending to "attack" something as abstract as "Spain". I can analyse the spanish conquerors, the spanish church or the spanish monarchy, but I can put in the same bag something as complex as spain in the beginning of the 15th Century, when Spain was only beginnig their fragmentary existence as a country. Because before that, there were only kingdoms, and their territorial extension was not the same and the actual territory of Spain, and it was occupied by peoples from a very diverse ways of thinking, loyalties and languajes.

I am perfecty aware that the Cardinals Pedro Gonzalez Mendoza and Francisco Jiménez Cisneros limited the intervention of the Inquisition in Spain. More aware than you, about the chichimeca, since they never made human sacrifices....You know, the chichimeca were the nomads of northern Mexico, and you are confusing them with the high neolithic cultures of Mesoamerica, as the meshica (or aztec, if you prefer), maya, tlaxcala, mixtec and others. which do practisized human sacrifices...like confussing a spaniard with a french.

Neverthless, your reference to this point as a venguance of a supposed attack against spaniards does not seems like a "bunch of friends and arm-chair historians". But let me explain this point, which is another of the great myths created by the european colonizators and conquerors to justify what was only the the ivasion of other´s teritories for their pillage. In all world, peoples from the same historic horizon (I don´t mean "timeline"), practiced humnan sacrifices. In Mesoamérica (since Mexico already had yet no existence), their common-shared belief was that the universe should be renovated to keep it alive. Blood was the supreme sacrifice. And not only the war prisioners were sacrificed, but also all the ruling class and the rest of the population made self-sacrices in blood. There are many representations of maya kings passing a thorned cord throught a hole in their tongs to make self-sacrifice. The practice of making previously agreed wars to take prisoners alive to sacrifice, was not as attacking indefense neighbors. I must point you that the more celebrated "Guerras Floridas" (Florid Wars) to take this prisioners, as they called them, were mainly among the meshica (aztec) and the tlaxcalan, a nation the meshica never could subjugate, and latter were allies of the spaniards.

I can make parallels with european practices, as the human sacrifices practiced by the druids well after the Roman Empire, the gladiatorial sacrifices practiced by etruscans and latter by romans, which were originally funeral sacrifices, and after that only an amusement. There were many other cultures in the world practicing human sacrifices in the diverse periods of their history, and you can make a review of it. This practices continued latter as sacrifices on the tombs of kings, to ensure they have company in the afterlife.

And you speak about millions of sacrificed victims!! There is not a single prmimary and valid source in which you can obtain this information. In fact, there is only one refernce to a number of sacrificed persons in the very special occasion of the inaguration of the Main Temple in Tenochtitlan, and no more. You have not the slightiest idea of the demography of Mesoamerica, as far I can see. But let me tell you one thing: the only people who practiced genocide to a scale of millions, were the europeans. And not only in their neolithic stage, but as latter as the 20th Century. The Inquisition was only a stage....But there is a big difference with the sacrifices practiced by mesoamericans. Meanwhile mesoamericans sacrificed and self-sacrificed because a shared belief, which involved personal renounce and penitenty, europeans killed people for greed or intolerance, against their own adopted religion, agains the christian gospell, against a well known ethic code, widely diffused. There is no guilt were is no knowledge and intention, and so there is the other way around.

No, I did not tried to make a cheap shot about Lidice, I only thought there were a confussion, as I was answering to your last post, and not other posts at the same time.

The Resistance was utterly ineffective? The allied command did not thought so. Surely you did not expect they expelled by theirselves the germans, when the french army didn´t. They had a modest, but necessary specific role, and because of it, they had the support of the allied command. But I can refer many other guerrilla that had success and take command of their countries. To begin with, in China. But maybe we are taling about different things. Guerrilla is an irregular army making an irregular war, not a conventional war. The killing of Heydrich in Czechoslovakia was a useless isolated act of terrorism, and does not represents a usual tactic of a guerrilla group, but from a terrorist group. Maybe we are not talking about the same thing, as the media has confused this concepts and made then synonyms. Guerrilla warfare was made even by USA americans in their fight for their independence, and it should not be confused with organized gangs dedicated to bandiditry and pillage, though it can be some resemblance in their methods of combat. Nor it should be confused with terrorism. There are elemental military and political differences among them. I am talking about true guerrillas, motivated on political ends and using the support of the population. Pepoples uses this kind of resource when they don´t yet have enough strenght to form a regular army, or when fight behind enemy lines. Again, we have an example in the War of Independence of USA, or in the independece wars in the american continent against spanish domination...And we won.

Another "conspiration" of the jews, this time to appropiate America for the pople of Israel? My godness!!! Well, this is new for me. Colon never knew that he was travelling to another continent, and he tough he was going to China. Do you think the few jews that went with him in it´s travels (if there were any), calculated to overcome the chinese empire? Or they knew where they are going to? Also, I understand the banking support came directly from Elizabeth the Catolic (Isabel la Católica), accordig with all sources. You know the story about how she used her jewlery as garantee to pay for the trip. That garantee was given to jewish bankers? Is it a proof that this trip was a jewish enterprise? What primary source do you have of this...unusual statement? Do you think the spanish crown would candidly permit it? Or that the jews were so candid to believe it?...It sounds more like another fascist invention.

The turks taking sides with germans and Stalin? To my knowledge, they used the same methods used by the european armies, with little differences. Yu should revew the history of the Crusades. And they never made something like genocide, nor the indian american did, so there is no point in comparing the sistematic extermination of a determined population, or sector of the population, made by contemporary dictadorships, in the civilized and christian Europe, with perfect knowledge about the meaning of their behavior in the context of their own civilization, with the conquest behavior of the turks or the meshica, specially when the meshica belonged to the cultuiral horizon of the stone age, in the neolithic stage!

But let´s say no more. Your arguments are the same arguments used to justify something which has not justification. The resource to "naturalist" arguments to justify conquest, are not valid, because if we take this arguments to their logical implications and consecuences, then all moral, all ethics, does not have validity, and nobody can be condemned for what he does, and so there is no valid responsability, crime or punishent: we are just poor animals. On this basis even the senseless acts of terrorism can´t be condemned. But the fact is that we are not animals. Animals are not greedy, they figh over territory or females when necessary; they don´t accumulate; they don´t have ethics, moral or culture; they not destroy their natural habitat; they not torture or kill for pleasure; they don´t produce a civilization or can evolve to a superior stage. The fact is that people and nations behave like that because they have the power and the intention to do it. Power has been the basis of the whole thing, and the intention comes from greed and intolerance. But there is an incovenient in accepting this kind of "moral status": anything made on the basis of power, is justified, and all situations can be reversed against the victimary, in an endless spiral of violence. And all condemnations against it, based on moral or ethical grounds would become a hypocrisy. And I cannot accept that. Nor I think we should, if we want to survive as a species.

Instead, I believe, and naturalists sees to confirm (actual naturalists, not the old "imperial" 19th Century naturalists and their followers), man evolved from mutual cooperation, not from competence. Languaje, society, thinking, develops in the same measure of the cooperation. That´s what make us different from the animals. The more intelligent animal species are those who cooperates on a more complex ways, conforming elemental societies. We must expand this to another level. Civilization implies a level of superior values, the higer the more inclusive and tolerant, meanwhile culture reflects technogies, traditions and beliefs. There were cultures with superior war technologies, but not superior civilization. And civilization does not implies out of necessity weaknes.

Atlantia · 22nd January 2009, 04:34 PM

Well my friends!

I am genuinely sorry to have started a discussion which has led down such a painful path.

I have composed several long replies to points raised, only to delete them before posting.

I had wanted to discuss the performance of non-european weapons against standardised or 'recognised' European types 'in combat'.
I was thinking pre 20thC, in fact the further back the better, before the gun became dominant.

I had hoped that specific battles could be discussed and we could analyse and conjecture upon the relative performance of the weapons involved and the different techniques for using them.
Katana Vs Broadsword?
Shamshir & Tulwar Vs Military Sabre etc?

Are there instances where European standardisation meant that the lack of variety and expectation (arrogant presumption) that European weapons were superior to all left the European forces at a disadvantage when they found themselves facing 'Ethnographic' weapons that were heavier/lighter etc or fighting techniques (fencing styles) that were unexpected?

I had no intention of starting a discussion of the morality of warfare, especially modern warfare, or wars within living memory or where forumites families or relatives might have been involved.

All of our nations have fought many wars in their history, and I doubt any nation could claim that all wars in its history were 'just' and fought completely with Honour.

But however we view, with the benefit of hindsight the actions of our nations and others, whether we can justify actions taken, tactics employed, weapons used or whether we cannot, I am sure that we all abhor the horrors of war and the terrible stain that it has left in the souls of all of our great nations.

My friends, please accept my apologies, as the fault here is mine.
I should have been clearer and more specific in the intent of this thread.

I sincerely hope that you can both accept my apology, and will still feel able to add to this discussion within the parameters of 'combat worthiness of worldwide antique weapons' as I have the greatest respect for your opinions.

Gene

Jim McDougall · 22nd January 2009, 05:48 PM

Very well said Gene, and I very much understood the intent when you posted this, considering it a viable topic worthy of discussion even with its potential volatility. With the notably gentlemanly demeanor that I think characterizes everyone here I thought perhaps this would be possible. I think it is an interesting discussion, but rather than wandering off into a lot of overly deep geopolitical philosophy and not unsurprisingly emotionally charged misunderstanding, I'd like to see if those engaged here would like to get this thread out of its tailspin focusing on the perspective intended. Lets leave the editorials behind ,OK everybody ?

In hopes this will be read and understood,
Best regards,
Jim

katana · 23rd January 2009, 02:23 AM

Agreed, very eloquently put Gene

It is all too easy for political talk to get out of hand

....especially events that are still in 'living memory' for a number of people.

We had a discussion on the forum regarding the 'effectiveness' of Tulwars against British steel in battle. If memory serves, references suggested that the Indians ensured their swords were well maintained, razor sharp and housed in wooden cored scabbards. The British seemed the opposite, complacent about their sword care and using metal scabbards ....which helped to blunt the sword when withdrawing/replacing.

Also, the British expected to swordfight with their 'drilled', practiced techniques...expecting their opponents to do the same........however, their technique was different and alien, and caused problems because of the unpredictability (to the British) of the Indians sword use.

I'll try and find the thread.

Regards David

Atlantia · 23rd January 2009, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

Agreed, very eloquently put Gene

It is all too easy for political talk to get out of hand

....especially events that are still in 'living memory' for a number of people.

We had a discussion on the forum regarding the 'effectiveness' of Tulwars against British steel in battle. If memory serves, references suggested that the Indians ensured their swords were well maintained, razor sharp and housed in wooden cored scabbards. The British seemed the opposite, complacent about their sword care and using metal scabbards ....which helped to blunt the sword when withdrawing/replacing.

Also, the British expected to swordfight with their 'drilled', practiced techniques...expecting their opponents to do the same........however, their technique was different and alien, and caused problems because of the unpredictability (to the British) of the Indians sword use.

I'll try and find the thread.

Regards David

Thank you David!
Your example of Tulwar Vs Sabre is exactly what I was hoping for to start this discussion.

There is an ancient Indian expression 'There is nothing so shameful as a blunt sword'.

No two fencing styles are more alien (and more refined) than European and Indian.

From fencing myself I can imagine how how the close style and rigid wrist of tulwar fencing must have been a revelation to European opponents.

Gene

Jim McDougall · 23rd January 2009, 07:02 PM

Thanks David and Gene! I think the example of tulwar vs. British regulation sabres is a great one to follow the thesis of the topic here, and using the weapons as our focus, which is exactly what places this in the theme of our forum.

I recall the great discussion that David refers to, and it was a thread by Pukka Bundook (Richard, Feb. 24, 2007, "Tulwar vs. Sabre"). In the discussion was reference to the key importance of sharp blades, noted by Louis Nolan (an enthusiastic young British cavalry officer known for his attention to improving many aspects of military thought, before his death in the immortal charge at Balaklava October, 25,1854). He was a cavalry officer in India prior to that event, and spent keen attention in studying the effectiveness of the deadly swordsmanship of native Indian warriors, with special interest in Nizams Irregular Horse. He had read reports of an engagement against a force of Rohillas describing horrendous results to the British troopers. When he looked further into the weapons these Rohilla forces had used, he was astounded to find they were old British M1796 blades discarded by the British and cut to razor edge, kept in wooden scabbards. When asking one of the British allied troopers of Nizams unit about what was unique about the skill of these warriors, and was struck by the simple reply, "...we never teach them any way Sir, a sharp sword will cut in anyones hand". Nolan never forgot the lesson of the importance of the sharp blade.
"Nolan of Balaklava" H.Moyse-Barnett, London, 1971, p.121

It was clear that maintaining the servicability of ones weapon, was most certainly a key factor in effectiveness in battle. With regard to this aspect, I will note that the quality of the weapons is obviously important as well. It is noted that these 'old' discarded blades were from the M1796 pattern cavalry sabres, which had wide, heavy blades with heavy 'hatchet' type points which radiused into widened slashing tips. The British blades of the end of the 18th into early 19th century were also largely products of intense scrutiny in the competitive conflict between English bladesmiths and German imported blades in what became known as the 'sword scandals'.

The blades produced in this period in England were profoundly sound, and only found obsolescence with the familiar advent of 'improved' commerce.
I have known many examples of Indian tulwars with both M1796 and M1788 light cavalry blades. In his post in the previously mentioned thread, Richard cites a book titled "Sahib" by Richard Holmes, noting (p.351) that a young British officer had a sword custom made by Wilkinson to regular pattern, and honed to razor edge, polished to mirror finish, but that it would not effectively cut.
While this would seem to defy the previous discussion noting the use of British blades to new effect by simply sharpening them, I would point out that by the time Wilkinson was producing swords, it was much later in the century. The custom making of swords by Wilkinson was not unusual, most of thier swords for officers were, and polishing and decoration were more the norm, as swords for officers were more traditional accoutrement. Times had dramatically changed with the advanced technology of firearms, and the sound blades of earlier swords were roughly comparable in analogy of the construction of vintage autos opposed to modern production examples.

I think the next point of focus would be as noted by David, that of technique. While it is previously noted that the Indian warriors did not receive any special training with thier weapons, it is important to note that the weapon was an instrumental part of thier culture. They became personally involved with thier own weapons, from iconic symbolism with manhood and strength to sometimes spritual and religious perspective. The weapon was afforded respect, and treated accordingly, almost lovingly cared for, and seldom ever drawn out of its protective scabbard except for use in action or obviously maintainance.

As has often been shown, the standing military, in this case of Great Britain, were often reluctant participants simply complying with orders and mundane existance. They were not typically empassioned in following a particular ideal and seemingly in most cases regarded their weapons impersonally as assigned tools, used as necessities in accomplishing thier compliance in battle while simply hoping to survive. This is of course a rather bland assessment of the business of warfare that in no way is meant to diminish the courage, and acts of heroism that often evolve out of it, nor the integrity of the sturdy men who fulfill thier duty regardless of personal view or acceptance of circumstances.

They were trained in repititious, mechanical drill that was of course not possible to factor in the unexpected variables encountered in many cases of actual battle, and using such structured techniques in order to be effective, required specified and expected techniques from the opposing participants.

I always think of the humor noted regarding the American Revolution, where the British marched in line wearing red uniforms outlining them as perfectly lined targets for the virtually camouflaged colonists attacking from the underbrush surrounding. Another instance I read concerned a British cavalry trooper who encountering an enemy cavalry trooper, struck at him with the prescribed drill manuever in number, and was outraged when his opponent responded with a cut entirely out of order, knocking him off his horse!

Before allowing this post to enter Tolstoy proportions, I'll end here

With all best regards,
Jim

fernando · 23rd January 2009, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atlantia

... rigid wrist of tulwar fencing must have been a revelation to European opponents ...

I thought the revelation was more in the contrary direction

.
Rigid wrist sword handling wouldn't proprerly be called fencing

Wasn't the advantage of malleable wrist fencing (recazo, thrust and all that) a score against talwar and scimitar rigid moves?
Oh, why should i, such an ingnorant, interfere in this discussion ?

Just forget it

.
Fernando

Stasa Katz · 22nd June 2012, 03:49 PM

Another way to examine this is see how Adur Rahman, the late 19th century ruler of Afghanistan tried to create an army united in loyalty to not only himself but to the idea of a unified Afghanistan. He had to find ways to use old and familiar concepts to create framework to support an idea and create an army that would be modern, not old at all, and in an area split along clan and regional boundaries.

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpresse...&brand=ucpress

All of this lies behind the weapons designed for and issued to soldiers and officers in this newly formed Afghan army--an army that was to serve an entire nation-kingdom, an army whose soldiers were to be paid through salary derived from a tax base.

In return, the soldiers and officers were to be content with this pay, not look or extort, and all were to remain primarily loyal, first and foremost to the head of state.

To see themselves as subjects, not as clansmen with local loyalties.

Quote:

Please be cautious! Think wisely and listen carefully to my words and sayings, I who am the king of you people of Afghani- stan. Listen, obey, and weigh well what I am saying to you, for no use can come from lamenting later if you do something wrong now. This advice is for all of you, from the commander-in-chief down to the common soldier and also for the subjects who are inferior to all. It has been said that a common soldier who stands with a gun on his shoulder to fulfill his duty has the lowest rank in all the military, but he shall look downward to the common subjects [ra‘iyat] who are even lower in rank than him. He shall think to himself that once he was one of them, but now because of the grace of God and due to the kindness of the king he has obtained this rank. You should sympathize with the subjects, who are your own tribesmen and who are continually employed in cultivating their lands, in cutting their crops, in thrashing their corn, in gathering in the harvests, and in winnowing the wheat from the chaff.

They are also occupied in commerce and undergo hardships and troubles by night and by day and only enjoy a portion of the produce themselves after they have paid the taxes which are necessary for the expenses of the state. Whatever money and goods I, the king of Afghanistan, take from the people is spent every month for you the people of the army.

It therefore behooves you all, whether you are high ranking commanders, soldiers, or subjects, to be grateful, because all that you pay to your government is given back to your brothers, sons, and tribesmen. It is as if their own money is spent by their own government for their own brothers and their own sons.

By doing so, God is pleased, religion prospers, and our dignity and honor are preserved. In a like manner, the subjects should also be grateful, so that God's blessings may increase day by day

One can read the whole chapter and see that this dream was not fully realized at the Emir's death in 1901.

That dream, as expressed in the proclamation quoted above, lies behind the swords some here have acquired, swords issued to officers and soldiers in the New Model Army of Abdur Rahman and his successors.

Jim McDougall · 22nd June 2012, 06:25 PM

Interesting, especially in rereading the great discussions we had here on these topics several years ago. Its good to see old threads long forgotten brought up, and revisit old friends, some of whom have long left these pages.
the phantom

kronckew · 22nd June 2012, 06:51 PM

getting back on track, for discussion:

karl martell - tours - 732 stopped islam from advancing north into france.

i particularly like that yataghan the grey bearded one is using.

siege of vienna 1529, battle of vienna 1683. kept the turks from advancing thru more of europe & eventually turned them back. dracula (vlad the impaler) fits in there somewhere too.

and spain (and the other colonial powers) conquered the new world mostly by biological warfare. smallpox wiped out 90% of their opponents. interbreeding with the survivors was also noted in earlier posts here, so i will leave that bit alone.

22nd January 2009, 12:55 AM	#1
celtan Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: PR, USA Posts: 679	Gonzalo, take it easy, don't get emotionally invested in a subject that only deserves unemotional discussion. We are all here a bunch of friends and arm-chair historians. We should be able to discuss any and all military history subjects coolly. Our interest is in weapon collecting, and we need to be able to discuss history dispassionately in order to understand the origins and natures of the items we collect. I haven't brought politics to this discussion. If you check, what I'm arguing is the universality of war itself, and the different excuses used to justify same, when in truth the main reason is economics, disguised as religion or nationalism. The basic conduct that we characterize as war has even bee been observed in apes, where they make concerted efforts to attack competing, or merely weaker adjacent ape groups. To deny its existence doesn't change the facts. Regarding Lidice, that was a cheap shot. If you check my comments yesterday, I clearly state "...Czechoslovakia, Russia and Pomerania". Yet those are not the only places where such things happened, only the more widely known. And even if I were geographically confused, it wouldn't add anything to the subject, so that point is moot. The French "resistance" was utterly ineffective, it was widely held to be _mostly_ a bunch of thieves using the excuse of patriotism to steal and kill people against which they had personal issues. The "resistance" basically filled the vacuum left by the german forces on their retreat, here and there killing an isolated german soldier trying to get away, or surrendered prisoners, very brave indeed. They mostly victimized their own country men, or more exactly, country-women. Just watch the movie reels of that era, their behavior was sickening even to the newly arrived allied forces. Regarding the burnings of jewish conquistadores. No, I don't know anything about it, but certainly would like to learn more. Colon/Columbus himself was a Catalonian Jew, as were many members of his crew. America was intended to be the new Israel, which explains the economical backing obtained from Jewish Bankers, both converts and practicing. The Spanish Crown evicted Jews from their territories unless they converted to Christianity. As such, they were forbidden to colonize America, although many came over as converts. In those days, if a forbidden colony was found, they were usually razed to the ground. All european powers did the same. If you intended that as some sort of attack on Spain, let me remind you that Inquisition burnings after _two centuries_ numbered about 2000 (They kept inmaculate records). In only one year, medieval germans burned more that 100,000 witches at the stake. So you see, it's all a matter of perspective. All european powers behaved quite savagely according to modern standards, but comparatively speaking, Spain was a little kid. In America, Mexican chichimecas engaged in the continuous "Wars Of The Flowers", where they would attack even friendly american nations just to get prisoners, this for continuous sacrifices in honor of the sun-god. Millions of americans were assasinated because of that horrible custom. That places the Aztecs on the same playing ground as the Nazis, the Turks and Stalinist Russia. To gain proper perspective: Compare the Inquisition burnings _four centuries ago_ to modern Mexico. Just in the city of Nuevo Laredo, the "business" between Zetas, Sinaloas and the corrupt Federales kills more than that in a single year. They actually _burn their victims alive_ in drums filled with fuel. This practice is known as "el asado". At least the Inquisition (Spanish version, not the German or Italian, which were far more sanguine) usually executed their victims before burning them. And that's _only one_ city of 21st Century Mexico. You see Gonzalo, I am very familiar with your country and its history, including the "Cristeros" and late 20th C. "Indiadas". Let's keep things civil, shall we? The problem with Central and South America is that after the "Spaniards" "yoke was removed, they placed on themselves the Maya, the Inca, and the Chichimeca-Aztec yokes, which were far, far heavier than that of the Spanish. The original American societies were extremely power-centered, very authoritarian regimes where european individuality had no place, which is exactly what the new creole rulers like Bolivar, Iturbide and Santa-Ana wanted. As a result, these societies reverted to type (after all, most of their populations were and are ethnic-american), while European Spain, with a thousandth of the means and population of the New Spain, went on to become a First World Power again. So, perhaps the only thing evident is that European civilization is more effective that the Latinoamerican version, with its caciqueal undertones. I didn't judge either Germans nor Israel's militaries, they did and do as they are forced to do, as did the Spanish in 39'. My point is that regular military forces are less brutal, less criminal if you will, than the motley groups that characterize guerrillas. Not perfect, mind you, just less evil. Empires come and go, and their rulers don't care whether the rest of the world likes them or not. That's a fact. Propaganda? I have no reason to preach any, and no interest either. I'm deeply offended that you suggest so. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 83?, many documents surfaced, proving among other things the plans for an inmediate subsequent invasion of Europe with Tank Regiments in 1945'. In fact, the fighting between Allies and Russians had already started, including air-to-air open combat, inprisonment of allied military advisers within Russia, as well as of allied prisoners "liberated" from German camps within the Russian zones. The Russians became so bold as to even snatch allied soldiers in broad daylight from allied held zones. Other documents reveal that part of the terrible acts committed during the Spanish civil war by both sides were in fact provoked by Russian agents in Spain. Some nights they would capture and kill notable members from the Nationalist side while dressed and acting as Republicans, the next they'd do the same to the Republicans but dressed and acting as Nationalists, that's what set the bloody ball rolling. These documents proved without a shadow of a doubt that the Russian assistance was part of a plan to make Spain a communist satellite country, and that Russia had no interest in preserving the Republic at all. These are not "Propaganda", just verifiable facts. You don't believe in the "Armenian Genocide"? What about the more modern "Jewish Holocaust"? Of the former, you can find significant amounts of literature, specially interesting if it's true it did never happened. Just check http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armeni.../gen_bib1.html. Please understand that these subjects hold no particularly relevance to me, and the arguments posited do not directly affect me, nor I do I have any vested interests or views on any of them. Neither do I claim to be the holder of the ultimate truths about anything. Heck, I might be wrong about everything! But by entertaining other views, we grow as thinking, reasoning beings. Lastly, I don't want to create further polemics, we share our thoughts and beliefs on this forum out of sheer fun. I think this discussion has ceased to be a pleasant exchange of ideas. So, let's simply agree to disagree on some of the posted issues. I will not write further comments on this issue, for me the matter is closed. After all, we are all friends here. Best regards, Manuel BTW: In combat, European fencing and stabbing usually trounces slashing Katanas. : ) Last edited by celtan; 22nd January 2009 at 11:02 AM.

22nd January 2009, 04:34 PM	#4
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	Well my friends! I am genuinely sorry to have started a discussion which has led down such a painful path. I have composed several long replies to points raised, only to delete them before posting. I had wanted to discuss the performance of non-european weapons against standardised or 'recognised' European types 'in combat'. I was thinking pre 20thC, in fact the further back the better, before the gun became dominant. I had hoped that specific battles could be discussed and we could analyse and conjecture upon the relative performance of the weapons involved and the different techniques for using them. Katana Vs Broadsword? Shamshir & Tulwar Vs Military Sabre etc? Are there instances where European standardisation meant that the lack of variety and expectation (arrogant presumption) that European weapons were superior to all left the European forces at a disadvantage when they found themselves facing 'Ethnographic' weapons that were heavier/lighter etc or fighting techniques (fencing styles) that were unexpected? I had no intention of starting a discussion of the morality of warfare, especially modern warfare, or wars within living memory or where forumites families or relatives might have been involved. All of our nations have fought many wars in their history, and I doubt any nation could claim that all wars in its history were 'just' and fought completely with Honour. But however we view, with the benefit of hindsight the actions of our nations and others, whether we can justify actions taken, tactics employed, weapons used or whether we cannot, I am sure that we all abhor the horrors of war and the terrible stain that it has left in the souls of all of our great nations. My friends, please accept my apologies, as the fault here is mine. I should have been clearer and more specific in the intent of this thread. I sincerely hope that you can both accept my apology, and will still feel able to add to this discussion within the parameters of 'combat worthiness of worldwide antique weapons' as I have the greatest respect for your opinions. Gene Last edited by Atlantia; 22nd January 2009 at 05:58 PM.

22nd January 2009, 06:12 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,670	You guys have an amazing command of geopolitical and military history, and philosophical discussions can easily get out of control, lets keep the discussion worthwhile .Its like armchair history 101, and great learnimg stuff. While our focus here is on arms and armour, the perspective here is certainly interesting as I have noted. Caution OK! All the best, Jim

22nd January 2009, 11:14 AM	#3
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	Sorry, Manolo, but I´m not emotionally invested. It is not the subject of the discussion what bothers me, but the lack of references to valid sources, the repetition of common already discredited myths, the confussion of concepts, and the fact that I would feel disrespectful mentioning some subjects here, as we are only guests in a forum where there are people from diverse countries, and sombody could feel disturbed. This is the reason I pointed that the subject of the jews was gratuitous and off-topic, and only mentioned the role of the jews and spaniards in the conquest and colonization of Mexico just to show it. No, I was not intending to "attack" something as abstract as "Spain". I can analyse the spanish conquerors, the spanish church or the spanish monarchy, but I can put in the same bag something as complex as spain in the beginning of the 15th Century, when Spain was only beginnig their fragmentary existence as a country. Because before that, there were only kingdoms, and their territorial extension was not the same and the actual territory of Spain, and it was occupied by peoples from a very diverse ways of thinking, loyalties and languajes. I am perfecty aware that the Cardinals Pedro Gonzalez Mendoza and Francisco Jiménez Cisneros limited the intervention of the Inquisition in Spain. More aware than you, about the chichimeca, since they never made human sacrifices....You know, the chichimeca were the nomads of northern Mexico, and you are confusing them with the high neolithic cultures of Mesoamerica, as the meshica (or aztec, if you prefer), maya, tlaxcala, mixtec and others. which do practisized human sacrifices...like confussing a spaniard with a french. Neverthless, your reference to this point as a venguance of a supposed attack against spaniards does not seems like a "bunch of friends and arm-chair historians". But let me explain this point, which is another of the great myths created by the european colonizators and conquerors to justify what was only the the ivasion of other´s teritories for their pillage. In all world, peoples from the same historic horizon (I don´t mean "timeline"), practiced humnan sacrifices. In Mesoamérica (since Mexico already had yet no existence), their common-shared belief was that the universe should be renovated to keep it alive. Blood was the supreme sacrifice. And not only the war prisioners were sacrificed, but also all the ruling class and the rest of the population made self-sacrices in blood. There are many representations of maya kings passing a thorned cord throught a hole in their tongs to make self-sacrifice. The practice of making previously agreed wars to take prisoners alive to sacrifice, was not as attacking indefense neighbors. I must point you that the more celebrated "Guerras Floridas" (Florid Wars) to take this prisioners, as they called them, were mainly among the meshica (aztec) and the tlaxcalan, a nation the meshica never could subjugate, and latter were allies of the spaniards. I can make parallels with european practices, as the human sacrifices practiced by the druids well after the Roman Empire, the gladiatorial sacrifices practiced by etruscans and latter by romans, which were originally funeral sacrifices, and after that only an amusement. There were many other cultures in the world practicing human sacrifices in the diverse periods of their history, and you can make a review of it. This practices continued latter as sacrifices on the tombs of kings, to ensure they have company in the afterlife. And you speak about millions of sacrificed victims!! There is not a single prmimary and valid source in which you can obtain this information. In fact, there is only one refernce to a number of sacrificed persons in the very special occasion of the inaguration of the Main Temple in Tenochtitlan, and no more. You have not the slightiest idea of the demography of Mesoamerica, as far I can see. But let me tell you one thing: the only people who practiced genocide to a scale of millions, were the europeans. And not only in their neolithic stage, but as latter as the 20th Century. The Inquisition was only a stage....But there is a big difference with the sacrifices practiced by mesoamericans. Meanwhile mesoamericans sacrificed and self-sacrificed because a shared belief, which involved personal renounce and penitenty, europeans killed people for greed or intolerance, against their own adopted religion, agains the christian gospell, against a well known ethic code, widely diffused. There is no guilt were is no knowledge and intention, and so there is the other way around. No, I did not tried to make a cheap shot about Lidice, I only thought there were a confussion, as I was answering to your last post, and not other posts at the same time. The Resistance was utterly ineffective? The allied command did not thought so. Surely you did not expect they expelled by theirselves the germans, when the french army didn´t. They had a modest, but necessary specific role, and because of it, they had the support of the allied command. But I can refer many other guerrilla that had success and take command of their countries. To begin with, in China. But maybe we are taling about different things. Guerrilla is an irregular army making an irregular war, not a conventional war. The killing of Heydrich in Czechoslovakia was a useless isolated act of terrorism, and does not represents a usual tactic of a guerrilla group, but from a terrorist group. Maybe we are not talking about the same thing, as the media has confused this concepts and made then synonyms. Guerrilla warfare was made even by USA americans in their fight for their independence, and it should not be confused with organized gangs dedicated to bandiditry and pillage, though it can be some resemblance in their methods of combat. Nor it should be confused with terrorism. There are elemental military and political differences among them. I am talking about true guerrillas, motivated on political ends and using the support of the population. Pepoples uses this kind of resource when they don´t yet have enough strenght to form a regular army, or when fight behind enemy lines. Again, we have an example in the War of Independence of USA, or in the independece wars in the american continent against spanish domination...And we won. Another "conspiration" of the jews, this time to appropiate America for the pople of Israel? My godness!!! Well, this is new for me. Colon never knew that he was travelling to another continent, and he tough he was going to China. Do you think the few jews that went with him in it´s travels (if there were any), calculated to overcome the chinese empire? Or they knew where they are going to? Also, I understand the banking support came directly from Elizabeth the Catolic (Isabel la Católica), accordig with all sources. You know the story about how she used her jewlery as garantee to pay for the trip. That garantee was given to jewish bankers? Is it a proof that this trip was a jewish enterprise? What primary source do you have of this...unusual statement? Do you think the spanish crown would candidly permit it? Or that the jews were so candid to believe it?...It sounds more like another fascist invention. The turks taking sides with germans and Stalin? To my knowledge, they used the same methods used by the european armies, with little differences. Yu should revew the history of the Crusades. And they never made something like genocide, nor the indian american did, so there is no point in comparing the sistematic extermination of a determined population, or sector of the population, made by contemporary dictadorships, in the civilized and christian Europe, with perfect knowledge about the meaning of their behavior in the context of their own civilization, with the conquest behavior of the turks or the meshica, specially when the meshica belonged to the cultuiral horizon of the stone age, in the neolithic stage! But let´s say no more. Your arguments are the same arguments used to justify something which has not justification. The resource to "naturalist" arguments to justify conquest, are not valid, because if we take this arguments to their logical implications and consecuences, then all moral, all ethics, does not have validity, and nobody can be condemned for what he does, and so there is no valid responsability, crime or punishent: we are just poor animals. On this basis even the senseless acts of terrorism can´t be condemned. But the fact is that we are not animals. Animals are not greedy, they figh over territory or females when necessary; they don´t accumulate; they don´t have ethics, moral or culture; they not destroy their natural habitat; they not torture or kill for pleasure; they don´t produce a civilization or can evolve to a superior stage. The fact is that people and nations behave like that because they have the power and the intention to do it. Power has been the basis of the whole thing, and the intention comes from greed and intolerance. But there is an incovenient in accepting this kind of "moral status": anything made on the basis of power, is justified, and all situations can be reversed against the victimary, in an endless spiral of violence. And all condemnations against it, based on moral or ethical grounds would become a hypocrisy. And I cannot accept that. Nor I think we should, if we want to survive as a species. Instead, I believe, and naturalists sees to confirm (actual naturalists, not the old "imperial" 19th Century naturalists and their followers), man evolved from mutual cooperation, not from competence. Languaje, society, thinking, develops in the same measure of the cooperation. That´s what make us different from the animals. The more intelligent animal species are those who cooperates on a more complex ways, conforming elemental societies. We must expand this to another level. Civilization implies a level of superior values, the higer the more inclusive and tolerant, meanwhile culture reflects technogies, traditions and beliefs. There were cultures with superior war technologies, but not superior civilization. And civilization does not implies out of necessity weaknes.

22nd January 2009, 05:48 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,670	Very well said Gene, and I very much understood the intent when you posted this, considering it a viable topic worthy of discussion even with its potential volatility. With the notably gentlemanly demeanor that I think characterizes everyone here I thought perhaps this would be possible. I think it is an interesting discussion, but rather than wandering off into a lot of overly deep geopolitical philosophy and not unsurprisingly emotionally charged misunderstanding, I'd like to see if those engaged here would like to get this thread out of its tailspin focusing on the perspective intended. Lets leave the editorials behind ,OK everybody ? In hopes this will be read and understood, Best regards, Jim

23rd January 2009, 02:23 AM	#6
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Agreed, very eloquently put Gene It is all too easy for political talk to get out of hand ....especially events that are still in 'living memory' for a number of people. We had a discussion on the forum regarding the 'effectiveness' of Tulwars against British steel in battle. If memory serves, references suggested that the Indians ensured their swords were well maintained, razor sharp and housed in wooden cored scabbards. The British seemed the opposite, complacent about their sword care and using metal scabbards ....which helped to blunt the sword when withdrawing/replacing. Also, the British expected to swordfight with their 'drilled', practiced techniques...expecting their opponents to do the same........however, their technique was different and alien, and caused problems because of the unpredictability (to the British) of the Indians sword use. I'll try and find the thread. Regards David

23rd January 2009, 07:02 PM	#8
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,670	Thanks David and Gene! I think the example of tulwar vs. British regulation sabres is a great one to follow the thesis of the topic here, and using the weapons as our focus, which is exactly what places this in the theme of our forum. I recall the great discussion that David refers to, and it was a thread by Pukka Bundook (Richard, Feb. 24, 2007, "Tulwar vs. Sabre"). In the discussion was reference to the key importance of sharp blades, noted by Louis Nolan (an enthusiastic young British cavalry officer known for his attention to improving many aspects of military thought, before his death in the immortal charge at Balaklava October, 25,1854). He was a cavalry officer in India prior to that event, and spent keen attention in studying the effectiveness of the deadly swordsmanship of native Indian warriors, with special interest in Nizams Irregular Horse. He had read reports of an engagement against a force of Rohillas describing horrendous results to the British troopers. When he looked further into the weapons these Rohilla forces had used, he was astounded to find they were old British M1796 blades discarded by the British and cut to razor edge, kept in wooden scabbards. When asking one of the British allied troopers of Nizams unit about what was unique about the skill of these warriors, and was struck by the simple reply, "...we never teach them any way Sir, a sharp sword will cut in anyones hand". Nolan never forgot the lesson of the importance of the sharp blade. "Nolan of Balaklava" H.Moyse-Barnett, London, 1971, p.121 It was clear that maintaining the servicability of ones weapon, was most certainly a key factor in effectiveness in battle. With regard to this aspect, I will note that the quality of the weapons is obviously important as well. It is noted that these 'old' discarded blades were from the M1796 pattern cavalry sabres, which had wide, heavy blades with heavy 'hatchet' type points which radiused into widened slashing tips. The British blades of the end of the 18th into early 19th century were also largely products of intense scrutiny in the competitive conflict between English bladesmiths and German imported blades in what became known as the 'sword scandals'. The blades produced in this period in England were profoundly sound, and only found obsolescence with the familiar advent of 'improved' commerce. I have known many examples of Indian tulwars with both M1796 and M1788 light cavalry blades. In his post in the previously mentioned thread, Richard cites a book titled "Sahib" by Richard Holmes, noting (p.351) that a young British officer had a sword custom made by Wilkinson to regular pattern, and honed to razor edge, polished to mirror finish, but that it would not effectively cut. While this would seem to defy the previous discussion noting the use of British blades to new effect by simply sharpening them, I would point out that by the time Wilkinson was producing swords, it was much later in the century. The custom making of swords by Wilkinson was not unusual, most of thier swords for officers were, and polishing and decoration were more the norm, as swords for officers were more traditional accoutrement. Times had dramatically changed with the advanced technology of firearms, and the sound blades of earlier swords were roughly comparable in analogy of the construction of vintage autos opposed to modern production examples. I think the next point of focus would be as noted by David, that of technique. While it is previously noted that the Indian warriors did not receive any special training with thier weapons, it is important to note that the weapon was an instrumental part of thier culture. They became personally involved with thier own weapons, from iconic symbolism with manhood and strength to sometimes spritual and religious perspective. The weapon was afforded respect, and treated accordingly, almost lovingly cared for, and seldom ever drawn out of its protective scabbard except for use in action or obviously maintainance. As has often been shown, the standing military, in this case of Great Britain, were often reluctant participants simply complying with orders and mundane existance. They were not typically empassioned in following a particular ideal and seemingly in most cases regarded their weapons impersonally as assigned tools, used as necessities in accomplishing thier compliance in battle while simply hoping to survive. This is of course a rather bland assessment of the business of warfare that in no way is meant to diminish the courage, and acts of heroism that often evolve out of it, nor the integrity of the sturdy men who fulfill thier duty regardless of personal view or acceptance of circumstances. They were trained in repititious, mechanical drill that was of course not possible to factor in the unexpected variables encountered in many cases of actual battle, and using such structured techniques in order to be effective, required specified and expected techniques from the opposing participants. I always think of the humor noted regarding the American Revolution, where the British marched in line wearing red uniforms outlining them as perfectly lined targets for the virtually camouflaged colonists attacking from the underbrush surrounding. Another instance I read concerned a British cavalry trooper who encountering an enemy cavalry trooper, struck at him with the prescribed drill manuever in number, and was outraged when his opponent responded with a cut entirely out of order, knocking him off his horse! Before allowing this post to enter Tolstoy proportions, I'll end here With all best regards, Jim

22nd June 2012, 06:25 PM	#11
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,670	Interesting, especially in rereading the great discussions we had here on these topics several years ago. Its good to see old threads long forgotten brought up, and revisit old friends, some of whom have long left these pages. the phantom

22nd June 2012, 06:51 PM	#12
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,259	getting back on track, for discussion: karl martell - tours - 732 stopped islam from advancing north into france. i particularly like that yataghan the grey bearded one is using. siege of vienna 1529, battle of vienna 1683. kept the turks from advancing thru more of europe & eventually turned them back. dracula (vlad the impaler) fits in there somewhere too. and spain (and the other colonial powers) conquered the new world mostly by biological warfare. smallpox wiped out 90% of their opponents. interbreeding with the survivors was also noted in earlier posts here, so i will leave that bit alone.