The History Thread!

Then what's the name of the ones used by commissioned officers then?

Shin Guntō

Thanks

No problem.

AFAIK the biggest diffrence between the commisioned and non-commisioned version is the one for NCO's was mass produced, and machined.

The Navy also possessed swords that were essentially of Western taste and influence, what with handguards and slimmer blades and ornate handles. The Army stuck with the traditional Japanese katana designs for the most part.

The officers had two different types. They were changed later in the war due to shortages in materials. The first one was the Type 94 Shin Guntō. The other version used more wood and less metal for some parts like the scabbard and handle called the Type 98 Shin Guntō was also an officers sword. The NCO and Officers swords were designed for mass production unlike the traditional Japanese swords which were labor, material, and time intensive.

Prior to the adoption of the Shin Guntō style swords the more western saber like Kyū Guntō were used starting just before the mid 1800's. The design of the Shin Guntō was part of the Japanese nationalism pushed before the invasion of China and reflects the 'returning to our glorious roots' type mind set in the design.

Many of the war trophy swords captured by American's were not traditional katana's but mass produced blades. While many Katana type swords were seized they were a very rare item on the battlefield and were typically seized after control of certain islands and Japan itself were seized.

I went around Istanbul today and it's really quite amazing. So much history here.

So on the subject of history, someone brought up a lesser-known but wonderful American Civil War song to my attention: Give Us a Flag. What makes this one special is that it's written by a member of the legendary 54th Massachusetts. And it's got everything: the Union's colored troops, the reluctance to employ them, and McClellan being a bad general.

Also a reference to the Confederacy's official proclamation declaring that they would murder captured black Union troops, which they only backed down on when Lincoln threatened to retaliate against captured rebel troops.

For the song. I've read the words countless times but I've never actually listened to it.

Nothing beats We are Coming Father Abra'am:

edited 6th Jul '15 3:36:03 PM by Achaemenid

Around certain circles of the Twitterati that I follow, there's a strong pushback against the Lost Cause that still seems to permeate a lot of Civil War historiography.

One of which is the cult of General Lee. The man was an exceptional tactician (Chancellorsville, for instance), but there's a growing point of view that he wasn't a good strategist, in terms of linking military operations to political ends. I'm personally not sure about that line of argument—his gambling offensive-defense was probably the Confederacy's only chance at prolonging the war—but what's undeniable was just how lucky the man was.

Let's face it. Against anyone but McClellan, he would've been smashed at Antietam, the bad luck of losing Order 191 balanced by the great luck of being up against Little Mac; then at Chancellorsville, if Hooker hadn't froze and gave him time to react and to let Jackson magic happen, he was in a fearful situation. Gettysburg was what happened when his luck finally ran out.

edited 7th Jul '15 10:47:55 AM by Druplesnubb

Have "\\" (without the quotes) at the end of the line. Do not press enter twice when separating lines (which is how you got your formatting), once is enough.

edited 7th Jul '15 5:29:58 AM by entropy13

I'd say that his luck ran in the sense that after Gettysburg, Lee could no longer afford to fight to win the war (e.g strategic offensives northwards) as contrasted with fighting to simply prolong it. Even after Gettysburg, Lee still proved himself able to fight Grant and the resurgent Union to a standstill (the Wilderness), or even downright victory (Cold Harbor) - but the writing was on the table that he could no longer launch anymore powerful offensives threatening Washington DC, and that his opponents' numerical and industrial superiority effectively gave them the strategic initiative for the rest of the war.

Lee also attempted to allow blacks to serve openly as troops, as the South's manpower reserves were being already bled white especially after Gettysburg, but Davis feared reprisals from his other slave-owning peers and struck down the general's proposal.

Thanks! (Though I really don't know why that has to be necessary just to begin a new row in the first place. This site can have some really weird coding sometimes.)

@Druplesnubb

Fair enough.

—

Found this in McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom:

re: Wilderness campaign: that was Lee getting backed into a corner and being forced to fight the kind of exact kind of battle that he couldn't afford—a straight slugging match. Not that he had an alternative; if he didn't slug it out against Grant, Grant would've maneuvered right around him and into Richmond. (Even after the shattering six-week campaign, Grant still got across the James (I think?) river unopposed and turned the match into a siege, at which point it was just a matter of time before Sherman kicked his way in from the West to complete the destruction of the Army of North Virginia.)

As a theatre commander, Lee was brilliant, but if you look beyond the theatre level to the strategic level, well.

That always warms my heart.

I've heard a lot of arguments recently that judging Lee on the strategic level doesn't amount to much since he wasn't the overall commander of Confederate forces until way late in the war. So naturally his actions in the Northern Virginia area are going to shine more, that's where his actual responsibilities were and his immediate focus was, the rest of the war being a distant second.

Also that there was a sectional bias. Lee, a Virginian, cared way more about Virginia than he did Tennessee or Mississippi.

edited 7th Jul '15 1:16:11 PM by Parable

That makes a lot of sense, and incidentally turns the Grant-vs-Lee comparisons into apples and oranges. When Grant faced off against Lee, he was overall commander, while Lee's brief was just Virginia, right? I think of it as Grant pinning down Lee with Meade and the Army of the Potomac, while using Sherman to actually win the war with a vast flanking maneuver, and crushing Lee between the two.

edited 7th Jul '15 8:34:03 PM by SabresEdge

Lee was made general-in-chief in late January of 1865, he barely had the position for not even four months. By that point Sherman had already marched to the sea, Thomas had destroyed Hood's army, and Porter had taken Fort Fisher and finally bottled up the South. So by the time he could influence the strategic course of the war on an official level, there pretty much wasn't anything left for him to influence it with.

It depends on the context of how the conversation is being held - most Grants VS. Lee discussions I've read tend to revolve around their tactical sparring after Gettysburg until Appomattox, with the Wilderness (stalemate), Cold Harbor (Lee), and Petersburg (Grant) being key highlights.

I should mention that there was another civil war being fought in the midst of the one we're talking about though - while Union and Confederate armies clashed along the East Coast, the Native American tribes of the Midwest were waging their own brutal Mêlée à Trois between the tribes that leaned to either faction and those that refused to side with anyone at all.

Did the Bible predict the Civil War? Probably not, but some slaves certainly thought so. During the March to the Sea, a Union soldier struck up a conversation with a slave the advancing army had freed. The freeman was overjoyed the Union had finally come, just as he knew they would. For their coming and eventual triumph had been foretold in the Good Book. The surprised and puzzled soldier later went to investigate, eventually determining that the freeman had been referring to a passage in the Book of Daniel:

Daniel 11:11 And the king of the South shall be moved with rage, and go out and fight with him, with the king of the North, who shall muster a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into the hand of his enemy.

Angry over Lincoln's election, the Southern states left the Union. While the Union fielded a larger military force they were time and time again defeated by the South.

Daniel 11:12 When he has taken away the multitude, his heart will be lifted up; and he will cast down tens of thousands, but he will not prevail.

Despite having to leave troops around Washington and Harper's Ferry, McClellen was able to blunt the Confederacy's invasion of the North at Antietam. The bloodiest battle on the American continent ended up a draw though, McClellen never had the drive in him to bring about a total victory.

Daniel 11:13 For the king of the North will return and muster a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come at the end of some years with a great army and much equipment.

When the war started, Lincoln had called for 75,000 volunteers to join the military to put down the rebellion, which popular opinion assumed would be over in a month. By the time the war ended, four years later, the Union had sent over two million men to fight in the Civil War.

Daniel 11:14 Now in those times many shall rise up against the king of the South. Also, violent men of your people shall exalt themselves in fulfillment of the vision, but they shall fall.

The North went through a series of generals, such as McClellen, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, Rosecrans, Butler, and other, all who vowed to crush the rebellion.McClellan in particular got it into his head that he was God's gift to man and Hooker going so far as to indicate he should be made dictator. All of whom were soundly defeated by an inferior force.

Daniel 11:15 So the king of the North shall come and build a siege mound, and take a fortified city; and the forces of the South shall not withstand him. Even his choice troops shall have no strength to resist.

General Ulysses S. Grant besieged the fortress city of Vicksburg and captured it and its defending army, dominating the vital trade and supply line that was the Mississippi River and splitting the Confederacy in two, squeezing the life out of it. His victory here and at Chattanooga elevated him to command all the Union armies, and from his command in the east, he took on the Confederacy's invincible Army of Northern Virginia and its gloried commander, Robert E. Lee. Grant, the Hammer of the North, hammered Lee's army like never before and then forced Lee to defend Richmond and Petersburg and laid siege to them too. Meanwhile he coordinated the larger war effort as well, ordering Sherman and Sheridan to lay waste to the Confederacy while other armies went after their rebel counterparts. Finally, after chasing Lee following the abandonment of Richmond, Grant forced the rebels to surrender.

edited 14th Sep '15 7:44:43 AM by Parable

Has the identity of the spy who told Stalin that Japan had no intention of fighting Russia again, which led to Stalin having the Siberian troops reinforcing the western border defenses against Nazi Germany, been revealed?

Yes, we know who it is. He was Richard Sorge.

Thanks