Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 5th, 2012, 05:42 PM   #71
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,034

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
The Afghans may have gotten something from China, but if so it wasn't significant compared huge amounts of money put up by the US and Saudi Arabia.
Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland - S. Frederick Starr - Google Books

China supplied way more military hardware than america or saudi arabia, saudi arabia is not an arms manufacturer and can only buy weapons and the only weapon america provided that was manufactured by itself was the stinger. Pakistan supplied the most, but pakistan already bought arms from China.

Last edited by deke; December 5th, 2012 at 05:52 PM.
deke is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 5th, 2012, 06:48 PM   #72
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,537

Quote:
Originally Posted by deke View Post
Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland - S. Frederick Starr - Google Books

China supplied way more military hardware than america or saudi arabia, saudi arabia is not an arms manufacturer and can only buy weapons and the only weapon america provided that was manufactured by itself was the stinger. Pakistan supplied the most, but pakistan already bought arms from China.
Saudi Arabia and the US put up the money for it though.
betgo is online now  
Old December 5th, 2012, 07:04 PM   #73

Mickeyman's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 359

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tlacaelel View Post
The Mexican Army was hugely divided, not to say rudely "profesional". The combined Mexican militia and professional army never exceeded the amount of 40 thousand men at the same time, and if Mexico could muster over those numbers, the logical strains would become a paramount problem.

And as of the soldiers and civs killed, 6 thousand were soldiers and 4 thousand civilians.

40,000 vs 78,800 gringos in two fronts was not an enviable advantage for the Mexicans numerically speaking.
Mexico also greatly increased the size of their forces through conscription of peasants. There was a lot of desertion, but a lot of the American volunteers also deserted. Sometimes they would enlist again to get the enlistment bonus.

What I read was that Mexico did not concern itself much with logistics. Soldiers were expected to live off the land or forage or buy things off the local economy using scrip, which was usually un-redeemable.

The source that said Mexican deaths in the war were 25,000 said that civilian deaths were an additional 1000.
Mickeyman is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 08:41 PM   #74

srb7677's Avatar
Liberal Crusader
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Plymouth,UK
Posts: 2,354

When it comes to dumb invasions, I think the British invasion of the German-occupied Dodecanese Islands in the autumn of 1943 deserves a mention, carried out on a shoestring with insufficient air cover. And to what purpose? Talk about peripheral! And of course it proved to be totally unsuccessful in the end anyway.
srb7677 is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 05:32 AM   #75
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,091

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lynch View Post
The Argentine invasion of the Falklands Islands. My whole life I've always wondered if they really thought they'd defeat the British. C'mon Argentina really? The British didn't give into Napoleon but they're gonna surrender to Argentina?
Actually there were many who opposed war and wanted a negotiated settlement - something like Argentina gets sovereignty over the islands but Britain gets a long term lease like the one that existed with Hong Kong at the time
Poly is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 05:38 AM   #76

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,403

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lynch View Post
The Argentine invasion of the Falklands Islands. My whole life I've always wondered if they really thought they'd defeat the British. C'mon Argentina really? The British didn't give into Napoleon but they're gonna surrender to Argentina?
I think the hope was that Britain would consider the islands too small and far away to be worth going to war over. Possibly there was some hope also of a negotiated settlement and some kind of shared responsibilty.

Plainly they hadn't assessed Thatcher very well and worse, Thatcher coming up to a general election.
Sicknero is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 05:47 AM   #77
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,091

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xikora View Post
...British Conquest of Cyprus-An invasion of convenience. King Richard of Britain was originally on his way to join up with French and Austrian forces during the Third Crusade. While traveling by ship, the fleet got disbanded in a storm. In looking for the fleet, he found one of the ships that held his sister and fiancee anchored at Cyprus, as well as various other shipwrecked ships and a treasure ship, and survivors who had been taken prisoner. He could've left upon freeing the prisoners-but nah. He then proceeded to take over the entire island and take the treasure. In short, the invasion pretty much happened because "here's a place with treasure" and "huh, well, I've got an army, so might as well". Ultimately, it didn't turn out so well in the long run, seeing as not only did it set the king's arrival date in acre a month late, but it also made his return route dangerous. It should be noted, as a bonus, that he was kidnapped by Duke Leopold of Austria during said return trip, which started this whole affair of the duke being excommunicated, the Holy Roman Emperor being excommunicated, and ultimately sending Britain into near-bankruptcy from paying off the ransom. Ultimately: You seriously invaded because of that?...but hey, at least it sets the story for Robin Hood....
I'm not sure how taking Cyprus made the return journey more dangerous - Richard I tried to return home via a landward route after being forced ashore by storms in the Adriatic

He also invaded and conquered Sicily on the way (besieging Messina)

Richard_I_of_England Richard_I_of_England

"...in April 1191 Richard, with a large fleet, left Messina in order to reach Acre. But a storm dispersed the fleet. After some searching, it was discovered that the boat carrying his sister and his fiancée Berengaria was anchored on the south coast of Cyprus together with the wrecks of several other ships, including the treasure ship. Survivors of the wrecks had been taken prisoner by the island's despot Isaac Komnenos.
On 1 May 1191 Richard's fleet arrived in the port of Limassol on Cyprus. He ordered Isaac to release the prisoners and the treasure. Isaac refused, so Richard landed his troops and took Limassol.
Various princes of the Holy Land arrived in Limassol at the same time, in particular Guy of Lusignan. All declared their support for Richard provided that he support Guy against his rival Conrad of Montferrat...the local barons abandoned Isaac...Richard then proceeded to conquer the whole island, his troops being led by Guy de Lusignan...he later sold the island to the Knights Templar and it was subsequently acquired, in 1192, by Guy of Lusignan and became a stable feudal kingdom...
The rapid conquest of the island by Richard is more important than it seems. The island occupies a key strategic position on the maritime lanes to the Holy Land, whose occupation by the Christians could not continue without support from the sea...Richard's exploit was well publicized and contributed to his reputation. Richard also derived significant financial gains from the conquest of the island...
"

Not so dumb afterall?

Btw, Richard I was king of England, not Britain but Britain was to recognize Cyprus's strategic value and took it from Moslem rule - today it is a popular tourist destination ... it also produces an excellent beer KEO

The Crusader castle still exists along with that built by the last king of Jerusalem Guy of Lusignan - a somewhat fictionalized version of events is portrayed in the movie Kingdom of Heaven

You could argue that all the crusades bar the 1st were dumb and doomed to failure...the King of France led one that invaded Egypt and was a complete disaster
Poly is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 05:51 AM   #78
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 628

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xikora View Post
Teutonic invasion of Novgorod-Again, failed invasion attempt at Russia (okay, granted, it was more so between Estonia and Russia, but still). Particularly? Battle of the Ice. After some fighting against the crusaders, Novgorod forces eventually managed to draw them out towards a frozen lake. As archers and fresh Russian cavalry came out to back them, the knights started making a disorganized retreat deeper and deeper into the ice. Heavy crusader armor+thin ice=bad. Ultimately: Teutonic epic fail.
You want to know what really happened. Just click here..
At Each Kilometer is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 05:52 AM   #79
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,091

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicknero View Post
I think the hope was that Britain would consider the islands too small and far away to be worth going to war over. Possibly there was some hope also of a negotiated settlement and some kind of shared responsibilty.

Plainly they hadn't assessed Thatcher very well and worse, Thatcher coming up to a general election.
Thatcher as Prime Minister was under pressure...her government and economic polices were unpopular to say the least and the year before she had been humbled by a threatened coal strike and been forced to back down

For a brief time it did seem that the USA was going to pressure Britain into accepting a negotiated settlement

The overwhelming mood in the country was for war though (though it was never called that and never declared) the feeling was akin to what Americans felt on 7th December 1941

Thatcher ordered the islands to be re-taken and so they were but later defense cuts saw ex-navy chiefs state that a similar operation was no longer possible
Today Britain probably couldn't do it until the new aircraft carriers and aircraft come into service sometime around 2020 I think?
Poly is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 05:55 AM   #80

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,403

How about the Jacobite invasion of England in 1745? Having won a victory at Preston Pans, Charles Stuart decides to march south on London and gets as far as Derbyshire before being turned back by rumours of an approaching English army.

What was he thinking? That a force of 6,000 would win him the throne? That some latent support would suddenly rise up in England to aid him? (Some crazy plans have been based on that particular delusion ... the Armada and the Powder Treason being possibly the most famous two.)
Sicknero is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
attempt, dumb, epic, fail, invasion


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.