Inligting

Is groepe (of 'kompanie') van honde gebruik om vyandelike leërs in Middeleeuse gevegte aan te val?


In Dogs in warfare en The Dogs of War word 'n aantal voorbeelde gegee waar honde in antieke tye in die geveg gebruik is. Polyaenus, in 'Stratagems', gee ook 'n duidelike voorbeeld (laat 7de eeu v.C.):

Die Cimmeriërs, 'n groot liggaam, het oorlog gevoer teen Alyattes. Hy het teen hulle opgetrek en sy manne beveel om 'n aantal groot, kwaai honde met hulle te veg. Toe die honde vrygelaat word, val hulle op die barbare, net soos op 'n trop wilde diere. Hulle het baie van hulle beseer om hulle van aksie uit te skakel en die ander te vlug.

Die Romeine het honde in die geveg gekonfronteer en gebruik. Volgens Wikipedia het 'die Romeinse aanvalhonde 'n metaalwapen gekry wat met vlymskerp spykers bedek was om die vyand uit die vorming te dwing.' 'N Ander bron verklaar dat' ... die Romeinse leër gereeld sy eie War Dogs sou ontplooi, met hele kompanie wat geheel en al uit honde bestaan ​​'.

Vir die Middeleeue in Europa is daar baie minder inligting. Afgesien van die gebruik van honde deur die veroweraars, aangesien dit die vroeë moderne tydperk en buite Europa is, is die enigste aanhalings wat ek gevind het, in Jared Eglan se Oorlogsdiere, wat sê

Mastiffs, sowel as Great Danes, is gedurende die Middeleeue in Engeland gebruik, waar hulle groot grootte gebruik is om perde af te skrik om hul ruiters af te gooi of om op ridders te perd te spring, wat hulle in staat stel totdat hul meester die laaste hou gelewer het.

Dieselfde bron sê ook:

Die Britte het honde gebruik toe hulle die Iere aangeval het en die Iere op hul beurt Ierse Wolfhonde gebruik om indringer Normandiese ridders te perd aan te val.

Wat nie duidelik is nie, is of hierdie twee verwysings betrekking het op groepe honde of honde wat hul meesters in die geveg vergesel het (dit wil sê die honde het individueel geveg, nie as 'n groep nie). Hou hierdie verwysings ook verband met gebruik in die geveg of net skermutselings?

Dat honde as geskenke onder edeles aangebied is en vir wagdiens, jag, verkenning en vlugtelinge aangejaag is, is duidelik genoeg uit verskillende bronne. Daar is ook gevalle van individue wat hul honde na die geveg bring (bv. Sir Piers Legh in Agincourt in 1415), maar ek is geïnteresseerd in groepe (of 'maatskappye' soos hierbo aangehaal vir Romeine) honde in die geveg.

Was daar groepe (of 'kompanie') van honde wat in die Middeleeue in Europa vyandelike soldate aangeval het?

Is dit moontlik om spesifieke veldslae te noem waar dit gebeur het?

Of was dit eerder 'n geval van 'n paar edeles wat hul honde in die stryd gebring het en dat hierdie honde saam met hul meesters baklei eerder as in 'n groep?


Ja. Soos u opgemerk het, het opgeleide militêre honde in die Middeleeuse Europa verskillende rolle in aanval, verdediging en as sidekicks. Die gesentraliseerde opleiding, toerusting en verspreiding van die honde toon dat dit beleggings van die state was en nie net aan individuele adellikes behoort nie.

Diere in die weermag beweer oor honde in die geveg:

  • '' N inval in Pole omstreeks 1250 nC deur 'n koalisie van Russe, Tartare en Litouwers het na bewering 'n groot aantal opgeleide aanvalhonde ingesluit. '

  • "Die Spanjaarde het ten minste teen die 1260's begin om honde te gebruik, aangesien koning Jaume I van Aragon-Katalonië waghonde aan garnisoene van streekskastele verskaf het (Kaunanithy, 185)."

'N Artikel blykbaar deur John J. Ensminger wat die boek bespreek Honde van die verowering, sê:

  • "... die Spaanse Christene het honde teen die Moere gebruik (Varner & Varner, bl. Xvi)."

  • "Daar word gesê dat koning Hendrik VIII honderde oorlogshonde na die keiser Karel V van Spanje gestuur het in 'n oorlog met Frankryk," elk versier met goeie krae "(Lloyd 1948, Weir 2002, p. 33)."

Die genoemde inval in Pole was waarskynlik een van die verskeie Mongoolse invalle van die 1200's. Dit word beweer dat Genghis Khan oorlogshonde gebruik het, maar ek het nog geen goeie bron hieroor nie.


Infiltrasie taktiek

In oorlogvoering, infiltrasie taktiek behels klein, onafhanklike, ligte infanteriemagte wat na vyandelike agtergebiede vorder, die vyand se sterkpunte omseil, moontlik isoleer vir aanval deur opvolgtroepe met swaarder wapens. Soldate neem die inisiatief om vyandelike swakpunte te identifiseer en hul eie roetes, teikens, oomblikke en aanvalmetodes te kies; dit verg 'n hoë vaardigheid en opleiding, en kan aangevul word met spesiale toerusting en wapens om hulle meer plaaslike gevegsopsies te gee.

Vorme van hierdie infanterietaktieke is gebruik deur skermutselinge en onreëlmatiges wat uit die klassieke oudheid dateer, maar slegs as 'n verdedigende of sekondêre taktiek is beslissende oorwinnings op die slagveld behaal deur skokgevegstaktieke met swaar infanterie of swaar kavalerie, gewoonlik in hul massas teen die primêre krag van die opponent. Teen die tyd van vroeë moderne oorlogvoering het verdedigende vuurkrag hierdie taktiek al hoe duurder gemaak. Toe loopgraafoorlogvoering in die Eerste Wêreldoorlog tot sy hoogtepunt ontwikkel het, was die meeste sulke aanvalle volkome mislukkings. Om deur klein groepies ervare soldate op te raai, gebruik te maak van stealth en bedekking, was algemeen gebruik en dikwels suksesvol, maar dit kon nie die deurslag gee nie.

Infiltrasie -taktiek het stadig ontwikkel tydens die Eerste Wêreldoorlog en die vroeë Tweede Wêreldoorlog, deels as 'n manier om hierdie teisterende taktiek in 'n beslissende offensiewe leerstelling te verander. Aanvanklik is slegs spesiale eenhede opgelei in hierdie taktiek, getipeer deur Duits Stoßtruppen (stormtroepe). Teen die einde van die Tweede Wêreldoorlog is bykans alle gereelde grondmagte van die groot moondhede opgelei en toegerus om vorme van infiltrasie-taktiek te gebruik, hoewel sommige hierin spesialiseer, soos kommando's, langafstandverkenningspatrollies, US Army Rangers, in die lug en ander spesiale magte, en magte wat onreëlmatige oorlogvoering gebruik.

Alhoewel 'n spesialis -taktiek tydens die Eerste Wêreldoorlog, is infiltrasie -taktiek nou gereeld volledig geïntegreer as 'n standaard deel van die moderne manoeuvre -oorlogvoering, tot basiese vuur en beweging op die span en seksie, sodat die term vandag min duidelike betekenis het. Infiltrasie -taktiek is moontlik nie standaard in moderne gevegte waar opleiding beperk is nie, soos vir milisie of haastige dienspligtiges, of in desperate aanvalle waar onmiddellike oorwinning nodig is. Voorbeelde is Duits Volksgrenadier formasies aan die einde van die Tweede Wêreldoorlog, en Japannese banzai -aanvalle van dieselfde tydperk.


Honde van die Conquistadors

Die Spanjaarde het ten minste teen die 1260's begin om honde te gebruik, aangesien koning Jaume I van Aragon-Katalonië waghonde aan garnisoene van streekskastele verskaf het.

Toe Christopher Columbus in 1493 na die nuwe wêreld terugkeer, het Don Juan Rodriguez de Fonseca, verantwoordelik vir die verskaffing van die ekspedisie, 20 mastiffs en windhonde as wapens ingesluit. Die Spaanse het die Guanches van die Kanariese Eilande vernietig deur oorlogshonde te gebruik. Later het die honde teen die Moors geveg. Die mastiffs, wat tot 250 pond kon weeg en drie voet hoog op die skouer kon staan, was brute aanvallers, terwyl die windhonde vinnig was en blitsvinnig toeslaan, wat dikwels probeer om hul teenstander af te haal. In Mei 1494 lyk die Jamaikaanse inboorlinge nie vriendelik nie, en daarom beveel Columbus 'n aanval. Een oorlogshond het absolute skrik veroorsaak, daarom skryf Columbus in sy joernaal dat een hond 10 soldate teen Indiërs werd was. Tydens die Haïti -veldtog, teen 'n groot inheemse mag, het al 20 honde in die slag van Vega Real in Maart 1495 geveg. Alonso de Ojeda, wat saam met hulle teen die Moors geveg het, het die honde beveel. Hy laat die honde skree, “Tomalos! ” (basies, “Sic ’em! ”). 'N Waarnemer het gesê dat elke hond in 'n uur ten minste honderd inboorlinge verskeur het. Die eiland is grootliks deur die skrik van die honde ingeneem. Later konquistadores, waaronder Ponce de Leon, Balboa, Velasquez, Cortes, De Soto, Toledo, Coronado en Pizarro, het almal oorlogshonde gebruik.

Sommige Spanjaarde het 'n wrede praktyk begin met die naam “la monteria infernal ” (“the helse jag ”) of “dogging, ” om die honde op die stamhoofde of ander belangrike mense in stamme te plaas. Toe hulle leiers aan flarde geskeur is, het die stamme dikwels oorgegee. Om die felheid van aanvalle te verhoog, het sommige conquistadores die honde op die vlees van inboorlinge gevoer. Een Portugese kêrel het die kwart van die Indiane op 'n stoep gehang om sy honde mee te voed. ” Die hond Amigo het gehelp in die verowering van Mexiko. Bruto, wat aan Hernando de Soto behoort, het gehelp met die verowering van Florida. Toe Bruto sterf, het die Spanjaarde dit geheim gehou, omdat die inboorlinge hom so gevrees het.

'N Hond met die naam Mohama het 'n soldaat se deel van die buit gekry omdat hy moedig in Granada geveg het. Miskien erken hy die Spaanse liefde vir oorlogshonde, in 1518, stuur koning Henry VIII van Engeland 400 oorlogsmaste “ versier met goeie yron collers ” (spike krae) na die Heilige Romeinse keiser Karel V van Spanje. Blykbaar het een van Charles se vyande van hierdie verkryging gehoor en sy eie oorlogshonde begin versamel. By die beleg van Valencia het die ystergeklede mastiffe die nuut opgeleide Franse honde gestuur met hul sterte tussen hul bene.

Die Spaanse het oorlogshonde na hul veldtogte in die nuwe wêreld gestuur om 'n groot deel van Suid- en Sentraal -Amerika te verower. Net soos die indringers ’ perde die inboorlinge laat skrik het, so ook die honde, want die wesens van hierdie wesens was nog nooit gesien nie. Aan die Asteke -koning, Montezuma, is vertel dat die Spaanse honde groot was, soos ocelotte, met dubbele ore, groot hangende jowls, brandende geel oë, maag en flanke met ribbes wat wys. oor hyg, tonge wat uithang. Hulle blaf het die Mexikane verstom, want alhoewel hulle hul hondjies gehad het, het hulle nie geblaf nie, maar net gegil. . Hulle is meegedeel dat die honde almal wat die Spanjaarde irriteer, sou doodmaak. Die honde het gereeld die ruiters in die kolom voorafgegaan en hyg met 'n skuim wat uit hul mond drup. ”

'N Duitse ontdekkingsreisiger vergesel die Spanjaarde na Colombia en sien 'n brigade mastiffe wat gebruik word om hinderlae deur die Chibchas -Indiane te verken. Hierdie diere het gewatteerde wapens gedra om hulle teen pyle te beskerm, en hulle het geleer om die inboorlinge dood te maak deur hul kele af te skeur. Die Indiane was bang vir hierdie honde.

'N Rekening in 1553 sê dat die honde van Pizarro so erg was dat hulle hul slagoffers in twee byt met hul wrede tande oopgemaak het vir die ingewande. ”

Die honde wat die Spanjaarde gebring het, was meestal oorlogshonde. Hierdie honde was sterk en wreed en het hul eienaars in gevegte vergesel. Hulle het gewoonlik pantsers gedra om hulle teen vyande te beskerm en is ongelooflik waardeer.

Die Spanjaarde was so afhanklik van hul oorlogshonde dat hulle hulle opgelei het om dood te maak. Hulle het hulle gereeld vas gehad dae voor 'n geveg om hulle dodeliker te maak teen hul vyande. Hulle is ook gebruik as 'n metode van marteling teen Amerikaners.

Die inwoner van die Asteke was bekend met sekere honde rasse, maar hulle was oor die algemeen klein en onskadelike spesies, sonder veel pels. Die spesies wat deur hierdie inboorlinge bekend was, was 'n voorloper van die moderne chihuahua en die Xoloitzcuintle. Hierdie honde is grootgemaak as troeteldiere en ook as voedsel en proteïenbron.

Anders as hierdie meer skugterige endogene rasse, was Europese honde groot en aggressief. Die Asteke het honde gehad. Hulle was klein, haarlose, bedeesde wesens, verwant aan die moderne Chihuahua, wat nie as troeteldiere grootgemaak is nie, maar as voedselbron. Toe die Asteke die eerste keer die Spaanse oorlogshonde ontmoet het - wolfhonde, windhonde, lurchers, pitbulls en reuse mastiffs soortgelyk aan moderne Rottweilers, het hulle absoluut geen idee gehad waarmee hulle te doen het nie. Hulle het inderdaad glad nie gedink dat hierdie diere honde is nie. Hulle het gedink dat hulle 'n soort draak kan wees - 'n indruk wat vererger word deur die feit dat die Spaanse honde soos kettings en staalplaat in hul kettingpos gepantser is en dus byna onaantasbaar was vir klipwapens. Hierdie skrikwekkende diere het al voor die geveg gevas, sodat hulle in 'n toestand van gulsige hongersnood was, opgelei om te veg en dood te maak met die grootste woede. Ontketen in snerpende, kronkelende pakke, hul tonge loop, kwyl wat uit hul slagtande drup en vuurvonkels wat in die verbeelding van die slagoffers blykbaar uit hul oë flits, skeur hulle met 'n verwoestende effek in die Azteekse frontlinies, los manne en skeur uit hul kele, smul aan hul sagte, ongewapende lywe. 'Hulle het plat ore en word soos ocelots opgemerk', berig een Asteekse ooggetuie van die Spaanse oorlogshonde. 'Hulle het wonderlike jowls en slagtande soos dolke en brandende oë van brandende geel wat vlam vat en vonke afskiet. Hul mae is stewig, hul flanke lank en maer met die ribbes wat wys. Hulle is onvermoeid en baie kragtig. Hulle bind hier en daar, hygend, hul tonge drup gif. ”

Die inboorlinge geklee in metaalwapens en kettings, het nie geglo dat hierdie wesens honde is nie en beskou dit as diere. Hierdie aanvalhonde, wat dikwels hul eie pantser dra, was die algemene Europese skok- en ontsagstaktiek van die tydperk. Die eerste gedokumenteerde New World -gebruik van hierdie honde -swatspanne het plaasgevind in 1495 toe Bartholomew Columbus, Chris se broer, 20 mastiffs gebruik het in 'n geveg wat in Santa Maris el Antigua gevoer is, Darien met sy broer wat dieselfde benadering 'n jaar later gebruik het. Hierdie honde is opgelei om mense na te jaag, af te haal en te verwyder en het vir hierdie doel 'n menslike dieet in die Amerikas geniet. Die Spanjaarde was mal daaroor om menslike jagte te hou, genaamd “la Monteria infernal”, waar baie sport gedoen is om die plaaslike mans, vroue en kinders te jaag en dood te maak. Die bekende Spaanse apologeet Bartolme de La Casas het vir ons talle vertellings oor die uitbuiting van hierdie honde uit die hel nagelaat, en dit is maklik om te verstaan ​​waarom hierdie gruwelike memes steeds in die kulture van Latyns -Amerika heers. Die name van baie van hierdie honde wat deur die Spanjaarde gewaardeer word, leef nog steeds voort, en hier is slegs 'n paar:

Bercerruillo, die skrik van Borinquen, totdat hy met 50 pyle geval is, het 'n salaris van anderhalf keer as 'n boogskutter van sy eienaar Ponce de Leon ontvang.

Leoncillo (Little Lion), die seun van Bercerruillo, was die vegter van Balboa, het tydens sy vele veldtogte meer as 500 goue pesos verdien, en hy was die eerste Westerse hond wat die Stille Oseaan gesien het. Toe hy beveel word om 'n boorling te vang, gryp hy die man se arm in sy mond. As die man stil kom, stap hulle stadig na Balboa. As daar weerstand was, het die hond hom uitmekaar geskeur.

Bruto, De Soto se kampioen, het 20 slawe as buit gekry voordat sy loopbaan geëindig het.


10 van die vreemdste militêre ontmoetings wat in die geskiedenis opgeteken is

Alhoewel ons voorheen oor kriptiese ondergrondse tempels en wonderlik geheimsinnige katedrale gepraat het, het die kant van sake in die militêre geskiedenis ook 'n groot deel van verbysterende, verwarrende en selfs onopgeloste voorvalle. Dus, sonder meer, laat ons kyk na tien van die mees bisarre en vreemde militêre ontmoetings (insluitend oorloë en gevegte) wat ooit in die geskiedenis van die mensdom aangeteken is.

1) Die 'anderwêreldse ingryping' in die derde Mithridatiese Oorlog -

Die Derde Mithridatiese Oorlog, wat in die tydperk 73–63 vC geveg is, was die laaste en langste van drie Mithridatiese oorloë wat tussen die geallieerde magte van Mithridates VI van Pontus en die Romeinse Republiek geveg is. In die eerste dae is een van die groot gevegte egter vermoedelik gestop deur die ontsaglike teenwoordigheid van 'n meteoor. Die vreemde konflik wat hier ter sprake was, het die Romeinse generaal (en senator) Lucius Licinius Lucullus en sy 32 000 soldate direk teen die vermeende groter troepe van Mithridates in Frigië gewerp. Ten spyte van die numeriese nadeel, het Lucullus besluit om die vyand te betrek in 'n poging om 'n taktiese uitkoms te bereik wat die Pontiese magte in die verdediging sou plaas.

Maar terwyl die twee enorme toue soldate op pad was om mekaar te ontmoet, was hulle getuie van 'n groot natuurverskynsel. Volgens Plutarchus het die lug skielik uitmekaar geskeur, en 'n groot 'silwerwarm' meteoor wat soos 'n reusagtige varkskop lyk, bombardeer die slagveld tussen die twee leërs. Dit is genoeg om te sê dat die bisarre, maar indrukwekkende gesig die meeste van die ontelbare manne in die veld laat skrik het. Gevolglik onttrek albei die rammelende magte onmiddellik aan die stryd om nog 'n dag te veg, wat tot 'n gelykopuitslag lei sonder dat 'n enkele slagoffer was. Wat die langdurige oorlog self betref, het die Romeine uiteindelik as oorwinnaars uit die stryd getree nadat Pompeius die Grote Lucullus opgevolg het as die bevelvoerende generaal.

2) Die blinde aanklag by die Slag van Crecy -

Johannes van Bohemen, gebore in die Luxemburgse dinastie in 1296 na Christus, het altyd 'n affiniteit met die Franse hof gehad. Teen 1311 nC is hy egter gekroon as die koning van die verre Bohemen nadat hy in die heersende Přemyslid -dinastie getrou het. Ongelukkig het John ook blind geword nadat hy in 1336 nC aan 'n genetiese siekte gely het terwyl hy in Litaue kruis. Ondanks sy toestand het hy daarin geslaag om 'n stewige greep op sy heersende lande te kry, terwyl hy ook bekend was vir sy krygsvaardigheid. Toe die Franse koning Philip VI sy Luxemburgse bondgenoot oproep, in plaas daarvan om weg te skram, het John egter sy seun Charles (wat pas tot koning van Duitsland verkies is) gebore, en saam het hulle deelgeneem aan die belangrike Slag van Crecy in 1346 nC, teen die Engelse magte.

En te midde van talle debatte, val een episode van dapperheid uit die verslane Franse perspektief. Hierdie voorval hou verband met hoe blind John sy perd met 'n groep ander Boheemse ridders vasgemaak het. Hierdie 'blinde, maar gebonde' liggaam van gepantserde ruiters het besluit om luidrugtig in die Engelse geledere in te gaan, maar tevergeefs. Terwyl sommige rekords praat oor John wat sy swaard woes om die Prins van Wallis swaai, moes die blinde koning uiteindelik 'n grusame dood teëgekom het - soos blyk uit die ondersoek van sy gehawende liggaam. Volgens latere assesserings het die koning van Bohemen 'n steekbesering aan sy oogkas opgedoen (met die puntige wapen in sy skedel gedruk) en 'n steekbesering aan sy bors (wat waarskynlik in sy lewensorgane ingedring het). Daar is ook bevind dat sy regterhand afgesny is, vermoedelik om sy kosbare ringe en ander koninklike items te steel.

3) Slag van Zappolino -

Slag van Zappolino, wat in November 1325 geveg is, was waarskynlik die enigste grootskaalse betrokkenheid tydens die sogenaamde War of the Oaken Bucket tussen die magte van die Italiaanse dorpe Bologna en Modena. Soos die naam van die konflik aandui, is die 'oorlog' aangevuur toe soldate uit Modena onopvallend na Bologna gekom het, net om 'n emmer uit die hoofput van die stad te steel. Die Bolognese (aan die kant van die Guelphs), wat reeds deel uitmaak van die groter konflikte tussen die Guelphs en Ghibellines, het die oënskynlik onskuldige voorval nie te vriendelik opgevat nie en is verder minag as die Modena -magte (aan die kant van die Ghibellines) geweier het die emmer te oorhandig.

Dit het gelei tot die oorlogsverklaring deur die Bolognese-wat opgevolg is deur die invalmag wat bestaan ​​uit ongeveer 30 000 wapenverskillige voetsoldate en bygestaan ​​deur ongeveer 2 000 Kavaliers. Hulle het opgeruk na die stad Modena, wat op sy beurt deur slegs 5 000 infanteriste en 2 000 kavalleriemagte verdedig is. Ongelukkig vir die Bolognese is hul numeriese superieure magte binne slegs 2 uur na die geveg gerig - en die Modena -soldate het hulle vermoedelik agtervolg tot in Bologna, terwyl hulle baie kastele in hul pad vernietig het. En in sommige weergawes van die gebeure het hulle selfs die steeds 'onoorwonne' emmer gedraai as 'n buit van die oorlog voor die beledigde Bologonese amptenare. Die glorieryke emmer word in elk geval tans in die belangrikste klokkentoring van die stad Modena (foto hierbo) vertoon.

4) Bestryding van die dertig -

Die bestryding van die dertig (of Combat des Trente) was 'n vreemde episode in die Bretonse opvolgingsoorlog wat op 26 Maart 1351 nC plaasgevind het. Die ontmoeting het op 'n vooraf gereëlde slagveld in Bretagne plaasgevind, en twee groepe het bestaan ​​uit 30 kampioene en ridders teen mekaar, met die een kant die koning van Frankryk en die ander kant die koning van Engeland. Die betwiste is oorspronklik uitgereik deur Jean de Beaumanoir, 'n kaptein onder die Franse vaandel. Soos die ridders betaam, het sowel die Franse as die Engelse vir 'n lang tyd geveg - soveel so dat selfs 'n skare bymekaargekom het om die bloedige wedstryd te kyk.

Hierdie toeskouers is selfs verversings bedien, terwyl die ridders galant voortveg. En na 'n paar uur se gevegte-wat die dood van vier Franse en twee Engelse ridders veroorsaak het, het die deelnemers 'n uitstel gevra. Gedurende hierdie kort tydjie het die krygers mediese aandag gekry en kos gekry. En nadat die wedstryd hervat is, is die Engelse leier Bemborough gewond en daarna deur sy Franse eweknie vermoor. Op hierdie kritieke tydstip het die Engelse mans besluit om 'n hegte, verdedigende formasie te vorm wat verskeie Franse aanvalle afgestomp het. Uiteindelik het 'n goewerneur met die naam Guillaume de Montauban op sy perd geklim en by die Engelse linies aangeloop. Hierdie desperate stap het die vyand se wil verpletter en met sewe van hul kampioene wat ernstig beseer is, het die Engelse uiteindelik oorgegee. Die Franse 'span' het dus as oorwinnaars uit die stryd getree in die makabere wedstryd, met die eindtelling wat ooreenstem met 9 sterftes aan die Engelse kant en 6 sterftes aan die Franse. Die oorblywende gevangenes is vermoedelik goed behandel en vrygelaat teen betaling van 'n klein losprys.

5) Slag van Cajamarca -

Die Slag van Cajamarca (wat op 16 November 1532 nC plaasvind) word soms gereken as een van die oorwinnings vir die Spanjaarde wat teen oorweldigende kanse behaal is. Die belangrike militêre ontmoeting op sigself het ongeveer 168 conquistadors (gewapen met slegs 12 arquebuses en 4 kanonne) onder bevel van Francesco Pizarro opgedaag teen 3 000 tot 8 000 liggewapende wagte van die Inka -keiser Atahualpa. Buiten die getalle, is die stryd egter opvallend omdat dit die eerste keer was dat die meeste Inka's getuie was van die vernietigende en 'raserige' krag van kruit.

Die voorval het begin met die aankoms van die Spanjaarde en hulself verberg in die verlate geboue naby die groot plein Cajamarca. Daar word gesê dat sommige van die Spaanse soldate, wat van hul ernstige status in die minderheid weet, selfs in hul broek urineer uit vrees. In elk geval, 'n optog van ongeveer sewe-duisend Inkas wat Atahualpa vergesel het, het later aangekom en veilig na die stad se plein gegaan. Volgens berigte was dit meestal die dienaars van die keiser wat hul ryk klere en seremoniële arms van klein byle en lasso's aangetrek het. Die twee partyleiers het selfs met mekaar vergader. Maar dinge het blykbaar versuur nadat die Spanjaarde Atahualpa probeer oortuig het van hul superieure godsdiens, en selfs beledigend (hoewel moontlik onbedoeld) die seremonie uitgegooi het chicha in 'n goue beker vir hulle aangebied.

Die verwarring in die semantiek het die Inca -keiser verder vererger, wat kwansuis geskree het 'as jy my nie respekteer nie, sal ek jou ook nie respekteer nie'. Deur die oënskynlik woedende toon, val die geskudde veroweraars terug in hul posisies en skiet op die kwesbare massa Inkas. Hierdie kakofoniese effek het die liggewapende bediendes wat nie vertroud was met kruit nie, geskok. Die Spaanse magte het voordeel getrek uit hul toestand van verbystering en het slegs 62 perderuiters deur die Inka -geledere aangeval. Terwyl hulle klokke lui, vergesel van die geluid van luidrugtige geweervuur, jaag die kavallerie na vore en omring Atahualpa se gevolg. Nadat hy baie van die persoonlike dienaars van die keiser vermink en vermoor het, het Pizarro uiteindelik die Inka -heerser uit sy werpsel gevang en sodoende begin met die verowering van 'n ryk wat meer as 2 miljoen vierkante kilometer strek - met net ongeveer tweehonderd soldate. Wat die Slag van Cajamarca self betref, het die Inca -span meer as 2 000 slagoffers gely, terwyl die Spaanse magte waarskynlik minder as vyf beserings (of sterftes) opgedoen het.

6) Oorlog van Jenkins se oor -

Die vreemde naam van hierdie oorlog wat van 1739 tot 1748 nC geveg is, is deur Thomas Carlyle geskep na 110 jaar van die konflik. Die van 'Jenkins' verwys hier na een Brits - Robert Jenkins, wat beide 'n kaptein van 'n handelsskip en 'n erkende smokkelaar was. En volgens die volgorde van gebeure is sy skip in 1731 na Christus deur die Spaanse wagte aan boord gegaan, en daarna is hy gestraf deur sy oor afgesny te word. Hierdie afgesnyde oor is bewaar en selfs as 'n getuienis voor die Britse parlement vertoon - maar die louere reaksie van die Here het hom ontvang.

Die foefie is egter weer gebruik na agt lang jare, toe die opposisiepartye en die British South Sea Company 'n volslae oorlog met Spanje wou begin. So 'n 'aansporing' -aksie het duidelik sy ekonomiese redes, waarvan die primêre een direk verband hou met die verhoging van die handelsgeleenthede van Brittanje in die Karibiese gebied. Boonop wou die Britse ondernemings ook druk op Spaanse amptenare plaas om hul werk by te hou asiento kontrak, wat die toestemming behels het om slawe in Spaanse Amerika te verkoop. Ongelukkig het hul verhoogde magte (wat vir die eerste keer ook 'n regiment koloniale Amerikaanse troepe ingesluit het) vir die Brittanje groot verliese gely in die Noord -Amerikaanse teater, wat uiteindelik uitloop op die omkering van hul winsgewende asiento regte.

7) Die Anglo-Zanzibar-oorlog-

Die Anglo-Zanzibar-oorlog het op 27 Augustus 1896 tussen die Verenigde Koninkryk en die Zanzibar-sultanaat geveg, en duur 40 minute lank. Dit is reg! Maklik die kortste oorlog in die geskiedenis van die mensdom, het die konflik begin toe Brittanje ongeveer 150 matrose saam met 900 Zanzibaris (ondersteun deur 'n skamele drie kruisers en twee geweerbote) in die hawe van die stad Zanzibar opgehoop het. Hierdie aksie is begin na die verstryking van 'n ultimatum wat die verwydering van die nuut gekroonde heerser van Zanzibar Sultanaat verklaar, ten gunste van 'n Britse keuse. Aan die ander kant het die Zanzibar -sultanaat ongeveer 2 800 soldate (meestal uit die burgerlikes) hul koninklike paleis verdedig, terwyl hulle ondersteun was deur 'n paar masjiengewere, artillerie -stukke, 'n walbattery en die koninklike seiljag HHS Glasgow.

Ten spyte van die minder getalle, het die Britse kant die verlowing begin deur die paleis direk te bombardeer. Binne twee minute het die uitgestrekte gebou aan die brand geslaan, wat die vyandelike artillerie -eenhede geteister het - wat dit tydens die geveg ondoeltreffend gemaak het. Dit is gevolg deur 'n vlootaksie wat die koninklike seiljag HHS Glasgow (saam met twee ander bote) suksesvol kon vernietig. Uiteindelik is die vlag bo die paleis afgeskiet en 'n skietstilstand is net na 40 minute se verlowing verklaar. Wat die resultate betref, het die Zanzibar -sultanaat ongeveer 500 slagoffers gely, terwyl die Britse magte slegs 'n enkele besering opgedoen het terwyl die nuwe sultan uit die land gevlug het en na Duits -Oos -Afrika gegaan het.

8) War of the Stray Dog -

Die War of the Stray Dog, wat dikwels die 'voorval by Petrich' genoem word, was deel van die voortslepende Grieks -Bulgaarse krisis in 1925. Die voorval hier ter sprake was tot 'n tragiese verwarring toe Bulgaarse magte 'n Griekse soldaat doodgeskiet het. later gevind dat hy die vyandelike gebied binnegedring het terwyl hy sy troeteldierhond gejaag het. In reaksie hierop eis die Griekse amptenare vergoeding van die Bulgare. Maar ongelukkig was die spanning sedert die begin van die 20ste eeu reeds hoog tussen die twee nasies, met hul geskille (en selfs guerrilla -oorlogvoering) wat ontstaan ​​het uit die besit van Masedonië en Wes -Thracië. So 'n jarelange vyandigheid het ook gelei tot twee volskaalse oorloë-die Tweede Balkanoorlog (1913) en die Eerste Wêreldoorloggevegte op die Masedoniese front 1916–18.

Dit is voldoende om te sê dat die Bulgare geweier het om enige vorm van vergoeding vir hul dade te betaal. As gevolg van hierdie afwysende gesprekke het die Griekse magte 'n strafinval in die stad Petrich geloods om die soldate wat vir die moord verantwoordelik was, te straf. Aan Bulgaarse kant het die plaaslike bevolking egter gejaag om gewapende milisies te vorm wat hul huise teen die Griekse aanval kon verdedig. En teen die tyd dat die Volkebond ingegryp het, was 50 mense reeds dood in die ongelukkige militêre ontmoeting. Later moes Griekeland 'n 'omgekeerde' vergoeding van ongeveer $ 45 000 betaal vir hul wrede optrede, terwyl hul onsuksesvolle beroep weer by die Volkebond ontslaan word.

9) Slag van Los Angeles -

25 Februarie 1942. Geretoueerde weergawe van soekligfoto na werk deur kunstenaars van Los Angeles Times. Die onderste deel van die prent is swart geverf. Die soekligte is met wit verf verlig. Hierdie weergawe is 'n afskrifnegatief wat op 'n onbekende datum gemaak is uit 'n retoucheerde afdruk. Die negatiewe is nou in die Los Angeles Times Photographic Archive by UCLA.

The Battle of Los Angeles, ook bekend as The Great Los Angeles Air Raid, is 'n verbysterende episode uit die Tweede Wêreldoorlog wat plaasgevind het tussen laat 24 Februarie tot begin 25 Februarie 1942, oor die stad Los Angeles, Kalifornië - drie maande na die ongelukkige voorval by Pearl Harbor. Volgens hedendaagse bronne, nadat daar na bewering 25 vliegtuie in die lug opgemerk is, is sirenes vir lugaanvalle afgeklink en onderbrekings is beveel. Die 37ste kusartilleriebrigade het toe begin skiet op hierdie 'gerapporteerde' vliegtuie wat in die lug sweef. Die Amerikaners het van hul .50 kaliber masjiengewere afgevuur en het ook 12.8 pond anti-vliegtuigdoppe gebruik, met die hele betrokkenheid wat hulle meer as 1 400 skulpe gekos het. Die vergelding was in werklikheid so groot dat die chaos wat daarop volg, per ongeluk tot 5 burgerlike sterftes gelei het - twee van die sterftes as gevolg van hartaanvalle deur die woede en geluide van ontploffings.

Opvallend genoeg, na slegs 'n paar uur van die beweerde aanval, is 'n perskonferensie gehou deur Frank Knox, sekretaris van die vloot - en hy verwerp die hele voorval as 'n vals alarm weens angs en 'oorlogsenuwees'. 'N Eietydse hoofartikel in die Onafhanklike Long Beach verwys na die verbysterende aard van die voorval -

Daar is 'n geheimsinnige terughoudendheid oor die hele aangeleentheid, en dit blyk dat 'n vorm van sensuur die bespreking hieroor probeer stop.

Later is talle samesweringsteorieë opgestel, met 'n paar aanduidings van die Japannese vermoë om vliegtuigaanvalle van hul duikbote af te neem, terwyl ander verwys na 'n geheime Japannese basis in Mexiko. In 1983 het die Office of Air Force History hul gevolgtrekking gemaak dat die ongeïdentifiseerde voorwerpe in die lug meteorologiese ballonne was. En op 'n meer sensasionele skaal is die beeld wat op 26 Februarie 1942 in die Los Angeles Times gepubliseer is (sien hierbo) deur hedendaagse UFOlogiste as beweerde bewys van 'n buitenaardse inmenging in die episode aangedui.

10) Verdediging van Castle Itter -

‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’ – an old Indian proverb originating from 4th century BC, was proven to be true by a few German soldiers of the Wehrmacht who had enough of their Waffen SS brethren’s shenanigans. After 5 days Hitler committed suicide, the veteran 17th Waffen-SS Panzer Grenadier Division continued with their bloody plans to recapture an Austrian castle called Schloss Itter in the Tyrol. This castle was used as a special prison for enemy VIPs, and as such imprisoned some famous French personalities, including former prime ministers Édouard Daladier and Paul Reynaud.

The SS division arrived on the morning of May 5, 1945, with around 150 men to retake the Castle Itter and execute its prisoners But they were bravely met by a rag-tag defensive force comprising 14 soldiers from the US Army (aided by one Sherman tank), the newly-armed prisoners themselves, and surprisingly 10 German soldiers from the Wehrmacht. In the ensuing battle, the Sherman tank was used as a makeshift machine-gun outpost but was soon destroyed by an 88 mm gun. And, within just a few hours, the defenders almost ran out of ammunition for their MP-40s. So a desperate ploy was hatched which involved the tennis legend Jean Borotra (who was then a high-profile prisoner inside the castle) vaulting over the castle walls, gathering information about the German positions, and then sprinting across to the proximate town for calling reinforcements. The desperate tactic seemingly succeeded with reinforcements arriving by 4 pm in the evening who then defeated the SS forces and took over 100 prisoners from their ranks.


Eerste Kruistog

The First Crusade (1095-1102) was a military campaign by western European forces to recapture the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim control. Conceived by Pope Urban II following an appeal from the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos, the Crusade was a success with Christian forces taking control of Jerusalem on 15 July 1099.

Around 60,000 soldiers and at least half again of non-combatants were involved in the First Crusade which set off on their quest in 1095. After campaigns in Asia Minor and the Middle East, great cities such as Nicaea and Antioch were recaptured, and then the real objective, Jerusalem itself. Many more crusades would follow, the objectives would widen, as would the field of conflict, so that even Constantinople would come under attack in subsequent campaigns.

Advertensie

Causes of the First Crusade

The first and most important action to spark off the fuse which would eventually burn down to the explosion of the First Crusade was the rise of the Muslim Seljuks, a Turkish tribe of the steppe. The Seljuks won significant victories in Asia Minor against Byzantine armies, notably at the Battle of Manzikert in ancient Armenia in August 1071. As a consequence, they gained control of such great cities as Edessa and Antioch and, c. 1078, the Seljuks created the Sultanate of Rum with their capital at Nicaea in Bithynia in northwest Asia Minor. By 1087 they had taken control of Jerusalem.

The Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081-1118) realised the Seljuk expansion into the Holy Land was a chance to gain the help of western armies in his battle to control Asia Minor. Consequently, Alexios appealed to the west for soldiers in March 1095. The appeal was sent to the Pope Urban II (r. 1088-1099) who proved remarkably responsive, as did thousands of European knights.

Advertensie

Pope Urban II had already sent troops to help the Byzantines in 1091 against the Pecheneg steppe nomads who were invading the northern Danube area of the empire. He was again disposed to assistance for various reasons. A crusade to bring the Holy Land back under Christian control was an end in itself - what better way to protect such important sites as the tomb of Jesus Christ, the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Christians living there or visiting on pilgrimage also required protection. In addition, there were very useful additional benefits.

A crusade would increase the prestige of the papacy, as it led a combined western army, and consolidate its position in Italy itself, having experienced serious threats from the Holy Roman Emperors in the previous century which had even forced the popes to relocate away from Rome. Urban II also hoped to make himself head of a united Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) Christian church, above the Patriarch of Constantinople. The two churches had been split since 1054 over disagreements about doctrine and liturgical practices. In case anyone was concerned, a campaign of violence could be justified by references to particular passages of the Bible and emphasising this was a fight for liberation, not attack, and that the objectives were just and righteous ones.

Teken in vir ons gratis weeklikse e -pos nuusbrief!

On 27 November 1095, Urban II called for a crusade in a speech during the Council of Clermont, France. The message, known as the Indulgence and aimed specifically at knights, was loud and clear: those who defended Christendom would be embarking on a pilgrimage, all their sins would be washed away, and their souls would reap untold rewards in the next life. Urban II then embarked on a preaching tour in France during 1095-6 to recruit crusaders, where his message was spiced up with exaggerated tales of how, at that very moment, Christian monuments were being defiled and Christian believers persecuted and tortured with impunity. Embassies and letters were dispatched to all parts of Christendom. Major churches such as those at Limoges, Angers, and Tours acted as recruitment centres, as did many rural churches and especially the monasteries. The call to “take the cross” - where people swore an oath to become a crusader and then wore a cross on their shoulder to proclaim their obligation - was an amazing success. Across Europe warriors, stirred by notions of religious fervour, personal salvation, pilgrimage, adventure and a desire for material wealth, gathered throughout 1096, ready to embark for Jerusalem. The departure date was set for 15 August of that year. Around 60,000 crusaders including some 6,000 knights would be involved in the first waves.

The Muslim Enemy

The Seljuk Muslims who had taken control of most of Asia Minor and northern Syria in the latter decades of the 11th century were suffering their own particular problems even before the crusaders arrived. In conflict with their bitter rivals, the Shiite Fatimids, based in Egypt, the Sunni Seljuk Muslims had wrestled Jerusalem from them. However, a serious blow to Seljuk ambitions came with the death of the powerful Seljuk Sultan Malikshah in 1092 which produced a scramble for power by various local lords with none gaining supremacy. Further, the Seljuk base was in Baghdad, a long way from the battles which would occur throughout the First Crusade, and so there was little centralised support or management of the war. Added to this, the Shiite Muslims managed to recapture control of Jerusalem from the Seljuks just a few months before the Crusaders arrived on the scene. Both groups of Muslims were most likely completely unaware of the religious nature of the Crusader's quest and that they were any different from usual Byzantine raiding parties. The noble knights from the west, though, were not interested in harassing an enemy and carrying off portable riches, they were in the Levant for permanent conquest.

Advertensie

Peter the Hermit & the 'People's Crusade'

Ironically, and despite the Pope's deliberate intentions to appeal specifically to knights (which is what Alexios had asked for), a whole lot of other people were bitten by the crusading bug. The first major group was the people's army, a mixed group of poor and petty knights. They were led by the preacher Peter the Hermit and the knight Walter the Penniless (Sansavoir). Ill-equipped and by necessity driven to foraging as they crossed Europe, they made few friends along the way. Peter had earlier been on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land where he had been captured by Muslims and tortured, now was his chance for revenge.

Meanwhile, a second group of crusaders, equally humble and ill-disciplined, made its way down the Rhine. Led by Count Emicho of Leningen, the group infamously turned their religious hatred to Jews in Speyer, Mainz, Trier, and Cologne. Both groups of crusaders, sometimes referred to as the 'People's Crusade' (despite actually containing some knights), arrived in Constantinople in the early summer of 1096 with the aim of then moving on to Jerusalem to remove the Seljuks. These first-comers are described by Anna Komnena (1083-1153), historian and daughter of the Byzantine emperor, in her Alexiad:

Advertensie

And those Frankish soldiers were accompanied by an unarmed host more numerous than the sand or the stars, carrying palms and crosses on their shoulders women and children, too, come away from their countries. (Gregory, 296)

They were promptly shipped by Alexios to Asia Minor, where, ignoring the Byzantine's advice, they were ambushed and wiped out near Nicaea by a Seljuk army led by Kilij Arslan I on 21 October 1096. This was not what Alexios or Pope Urban II had had in mind when they started off the crusade movement.

The Fall of Antioch

The second wave of crusaders, this time composed of more gentlemanly and knights and professional warriors, arrived in Constantinople in the autumn and winter of 1096. The second batch was not much of an improvement as far as the Byzantine emperor was concerned as it included amongst its leaders an old enemy, the Norman Bohemund of Taranto. He and his father, Robert Guiscard (the “Crafty”), the Duke of Apulia, had attacked Byzantine Greece between 1081 and 1084. In 1097 Bohemund and his knights arrived in Constantinople and initially, things went well with the Norman swearing allegiance to the emperor along with other Crusader leaders such as Godfrey of Bouillon, the Duke of Lower Lorraine, and Raymond IV (aka Raymond de Saint-Gilles), Count of Toulouse. There were many more nobles besides, and with each commanding their own contingent of knights, not to mention the practical problems of language barriers, it was a minor miracle the force achieved anything at all. Their success would surprise everyone.

Alexios used the crusaders well, despite the rape and pillage perpetrated by the less pious members of the western armies which were causing chaos as they crossed Europe and the Empire's territory. The Normans were keen to defeat the Seljuks and establish some new kingdoms of their own. Alexios may well have gone along with this plan as such kingdoms might prove a useful buffer on the Empire's border. With a mixed force of crusaders, Alexios' army, commanded by the Byzantine general Tatikios, thus managed to recapture Nicaea in June 1097, although the Seljuks had, in reality, preferred to abandon it and fight another day. Next, they swept on over the Anatolian plain and won a great victory at Dorylaion on 1 July 1097.

Advertensie

The crusader-Byzantine army then split up in September 1097, with one army moving on to Edessa further to the east and another into Cilicia to the south-east. The main body headed for Antioch in Syria, the key to the Euphrates frontier. The great city was one of the five patriarchal seats of the Christian church, once home to Saint Paul and Peter, and probable birthplace of Saint Luke. It would be a fine propaganda coup to get it back again.

Although well-fortified and too big to fully encircle, Antioch was indeed the next big crusader capture on 3 June 1098 after an arduous 8-month siege where the attackers themselves came under siege from a Muslim force from Mosul. The Crusaders also suffered from plague, famine, and desertions. Unfortunately for Alexios, on his way to support the siege of the city he had met refugees from the area who wrongly informed him that the Crusaders were on the brink of defeat to a huge Muslim army and so the emperor returned home. Bohemund was not best pleased to find out his army had been abandoned by the Byzantines, even if he did capture the city anyway and defeat a relief force. The Norman decided to renege on his vow to return all captured territory to the Emperor and kept the city for himself. The relations were thus irrevocably soured between the two leaders.

The Capture of Jerusalem

In December 1098 the crusader army marched onwards to Jerusalem, capturing several Syrian port cities on their way. They arrived, finally, at their ultimate destination on 7 June 1099. Of the vast army that had left Europe there were now only around 1,300 knights and some 12,500 infantry to achieve what was supposed to be the primary goal of the Crusade.

Protected by massive walls and a combination of moat and precipices, Jerusalem was going to be a tough military nut to crack. Fortunately, a number of Genoese ships arrived at just the right moment with timber, which was used to make two siege towers, catapults, and a battering ram. Despite these weapons, the defenders resisted the siege, although the Muslim garrison was remarkably reluctant to break out and make raids on the besiegers, perhaps being content to sit and await the promised relief from Egypt. Then, in mid-July, Godfrey of Bouillon decided to attack what he thought looked like a weaker section of the wall. Setting up their siege tower under the cover of darkness and filling a portion of the moat, the Crusaders managed to get in touching distance of the walls. With Godfrey leading from the front, the attackers scaled the defences and found themselves inside the city on 15 July 1099.

A mass slaughter of Muslims and Jews followed, although figures of 10,000 or even 75,000 killed are very likely an exaggeration. A contemporary Muslim source (Ibn al-Arabi) puts the figure at 3,000 of the city's probable 30,000 residents. Within a month, a large Egyptian army arrived to take back the city, but they were defeated at Ascalon. Jerusalem, for the time being at least, was back in Christian hands Godfrey of Bouillon, the hero of the siege, was made the king of Jerusalem. Back in Italy, Pope Urban II had died on 29 July 1099 without knowing the success of his crusade. For some historians, Ascalon marks the end of the First Crusade.

More Victories

Having accomplished their mission, many crusaders now returned to Europe, some with riches, a few with holy relics, but most rather worse for wear after years of hard battles and scant reward. A fresh wave of crusaders, though, arrived in Constantinople in 1100, and they were organised by Raymond of Toulouse. On 17 May 1101 Caesarea was captured on 26 May Acre fell too. Ominously, though, for future crusades, the Muslims were becoming more familiar with western battle tactics and weapons. In September 1101 a crusader army of Lombard, French, and German knights was defeated by the Seljuks. Things were only going to get more difficult for western armies over the next two centuries of warfare.

Meanwhile, Alexios had not given up on Antioch, and he sent a force to attack the city or at the very least isolate it from the surrounding Crusader-held territories. Bohemund had left, though, and returning to Italy, he convinced Pope Paschall II (r. 1060-1118) and the French king Philip I (r. 1060-1108) that the real threat to the Christian world was the Byzantines. Their treacherous emperor and wayward church had to be eliminated, and so an invasion of Byzantium, the precise location being Albania, was launched in 1107. It failed, largely because Alexios mobilised his best forces to meet them, and the Pope abandoned his support of the campaign. As a result, Bohemund was forced to accept subservience to the Byzantine emperor, who let him rule Antioch in Alexios' name. Thus, the pattern was set for a carving up of captured territories.

Assessment: Achievements & Failures

The First Crusade was successful in that Jerusalem was recaptured, but to ensure the Holy City stayed in Christian hands, it was necessary that various western settlements were established in the Levant (collectively known as the Crusader States, the Latin East or Outremer). Orders of knights were created, too, for their better defence. Clearly, a steady supply of new crusaders would be needed in the coming decades and a wave of taxes to fund them. Initially, there were massacres of local populations, but the westerners soon realised that to hold on to their gains they needed the support of the extraordinarily diverse local populations. Consequently, there grew a toleration of non-Christian religions, albeit with some restrictions.

Despite the continued recruitment drive in Europe and attempts to create permanent 'colonies' and kingdoms, it proved impossible to hold on to the gains of the First Crusade, and more campaigns were required to recapture such cities as Edessa and Jerusalem itself after its fall again in 1187. There would be eight official crusades and several other unofficial ones throughout the 12th and 13th centuries, which all met with more failure than success.

There were unforeseen or negative consequences to the First Crusade, notably the rupture in western-Byzantine relations and the Byzantines horror at unruly groups of warriors causing havoc in their territory. Outbreaks of fighting between crusaders and Byzantine forces were common, and the mistrust and suspicion of their intentions grew. It was a troublesome relationship that only got worse, and the ill-feeling and mutual distrust between east and west would rumble on and culminate in the sacking of Constantinople in 1204.

Crusader groups, usually not knights but the urban poor, took the opportunity of Christian fervour to attack minority groups, especially Jews in northern France and the Rhineland. The crusading movement also spread to Spain where, in the second and third decades of the 12th century, attacks were made against the Moors there. Prussia, the Baltic, North Africa, and Poland, amongst many other places, would also witness crusading armies up to the 16th century as the crusading ideal, despite the dubious military successes, continued to appeal to leaders, soldiers, and ordinary people in the west, and its target widened to include not only Muslims but also pagans, schismatics, and heretics.


36. The German Fighter That Caught the British Off Guard

Wanneer die Luftwaffe&rsquos Focke-Wulf Fw 190 first made its operational debut in France in August, 1941, it came as an unpleasant surprise to the RAF. Except for turn radius, the new German fighter was superior in just about every way to the RAF&rsquos main frontline fighter at the time, the Spitfire Mk. V. Especially when dogfighting at low and medium altitudes.

Fw 190As in France. Bundesarchiv Bild

The Fw 190 seized aerial superiority from the RAF for nearly a year, until the introduction of the vastly improved Spitfire Mk. IX in July, 1942, restored parity. In the meantime, the British were desperate to get their hands on an Fw 190 to examine what made it tick, and figure out how to best counter it. Aware of that, the Luftwaffe prohibited its Fw 190 pilots from flying over Britain, lest one get shot down and give the British the opportunity to inspect the wreckage. Then one of the biggest oops moments by a WWII pilot delivered an Fw 190 in pristine condition straight into the RAF&rsquos hands.


Pushing East

To the east, American and British troops advanced through the Atlas Mountains after dealing with the Vichy French authorities. It was the hope of the German commanders that the Allies could be held in the mountains and prevented from reaching the coast and severing Rommel's supply lines. While Axis forces were successful in halting the enemy advance in northern Tunisia, this plan was disrupted to the south by the Allied capture of Faïd east of the mountains. Situated in the foothills, Faïd provided the Allies with an excellent platform for attacking towards the coast and cutting Rommel's supply lines. In an effort to push the Allies back into the mountains, the 21st Panzer Division of General Hans-Jürgen von Arnim's Fifth Panzer Army struck the town's French defenders on January 30. Though French artillery proved effective against the German infantry, the French position quickly became untenable (Map).


Horses in World War One

Horses were heavily used in World War One. Horses were involved in the war’s first military conflict involving Great Britain – a cavalry attack near Mons in August 1914. Horses were primarily to be used as a form of transport during the war.

Horses pulling artillery

When the war broke out in Western Europe in August 1914, both Britain and Germany had a cavalry force that each numbered about 100,000 men. Such a number of men would have needed a significant number of horses but probably all senior military personnel at this time believed in the supremacy of the cavalry attack. In August 1914, no-one could have contemplated the horrors of trench warfare – hence why the cavalry regiments reigned supreme. In fact, in Great Britain the cavalry regiments would have been seen as the senior regiments in the British Army, along with the Guards regiments, and very many senior army positions were held by cavalry officers.

However, the cavalry charge seen near Mons was practically the last seen in the war. Trench warfare made such charges not only impractical but impossible. A cavalry charge was essentially from a bygone military era and machine guns, trench complexes and barbed wire made such charges all but impossible. However, some cavalry charges did occur despite the obvious reasons as to why they should not. In March 1918, the British launched a cavalry charge at the Germans. By the Spring of 1918, the war had become more fluid but despite this, out of 150 horses used in the charge only 4 survived. The rest were cut down by German machine gun fire.

However, though a cavalry charge was no longer a viable military tactic, horses were still invaluable as a way of transporting materials to the front. Military vehicles, as with any mechanised vehicles of the time, were relatively new inventions and prone to problems. Horses, along with mules, were reliable forms of transport and compared to a lorry needed little upkeep.

Germans advancing on horseback to the Marne

Such was the use of horses on the Western Front, that over 8 million died on all sides fighting in the war. Two and a half million horses were treated in veterinary hospitals with about two million being sufficiently cured that they could return to duty.


Battle of Rourkes Drift - Preparing the Station:

Shortly after Spalding's departure, Lieutenant James Adendorff arrived at the station with news of the defeat at Isandlwana and the approach of 4,000-5,000 Zulus under Prince Dabulamanzi kaMpande. Stunned by this news, the leadership at the station met to decide their course of action. After discussions, Chard, Bromhead, and Acting Assistant Commissary James Dalton decided to stay and fight as they believed that the Zulus would overtake them in open country. Moving quickly, they dispatched a small group of Natal Native Horse (NNH) to serve as pickets and began fortifying the mission station.

Constructing a perimeter of mealie bags that connected the station's hospital, storehouse, and kraal, Chard, Bromhead, and Dalton were alerted to the Zulu's approach around 4:00 PM by Witt and Chaplain George Smith who had climbed the nearby Oscarberg hill. Shortly thereafter, the NNH fled the field and was quickly followed by Stephenson's NNC troops. Reduced to 139 men, Chard ordered a new line of biscuit boxes built across the middle of the compound in an effort to shorten the perimeter. As this progressed, 600 Zulus emerged from behind the Oscarberg and launched an attack.


6 Answers 6

The human body literally contains all the nutrients humans need to survive and thrive. Getting to them is another matter. Some of those nutrients are easy to get by eating flesh, but others will be concentrated in organs, the bones, or blood. Eating bones is flat difficult, and drinking blood exposes you to a lot of potential diseases. Some organs, like the kidney and liver, can contain toxins, and eating them (especially raw) will, sooner or later, result in serious health issues.

Eating raw flesh is mostly safe in the short term, provided it is fresh and the poor guy being eaten isn't already diseased or infested with parasites. Eventually, somebody you eat will be diseased, and in an enclosed area, when one person gets diseased, most of the group is going to get it.

Storing the meat is a serious issue, as raw meat begins to spoil very quickly. Without a way to cook it, it will need to be dehydrated (the sun can do this, or magic). Salting meat is a common means of preserving it, though you will need a lot of salt to do this long-term.

I can't think of any method they could use to preserve the blood, given the constraints you've laid out. Dit mag be possible to dry the blood and then eat whatever doesn't evaporate. I am unaware of any studies about this, how it would protect you from disease (or not), how long the leftovers could be stored before going bad, etc.

In any case, this is going to be very dehumanizing work. Those involved in the processing are going to be severely desensitized and/or traumatized. If anyone they eat has diseases, those are going to crop up in the besieged population. Even if you cook the meat, some of these diseases are going to get out. Without magical support, I don't think it is possible for a community to live on only water and cannibalism for an extended period of time.

If they can at least grow some vegetables and fruit in planter boxes, this scenario becomes much more realistic from a "survival" standpoint. It will still cause severe trauma and change their culture in ways modern humans would find undesirable, to say the least. Some of the population could be sheltered from these effects, but not all.

Sources for trauma resulting from handling bodies:

You say the plan is to kill/capture and then eat their enemies?

One Question. Hoe? As you have defined the problem the city is under siege. By default that means it has been blockaded/encircled by a superior militarily force which is both preventing the inhabitants both bringing in food and other supplies en preventing citizens from exiting in any significant numbers. (That's how sieges work.)

It also implies that the defenders have no choice but to accept this state of affairs because they don't have the military force needed to break the siege. Otherwise they wouldn't be under siege to begin with!

So if your city is planning to obtain enemy soldiers in big enough numbers to sustain itself they have no choice but to sortie through the city gates and fight pitched battles with the besiegers. And remember besieging armies generally planned and prepared for a siege.

They built fortified camps for their own soldiers well back from the city walls, posted guards all around the city to watch for movement and had things like roving patrols and watch fires. Hulle geweet their besieged enemies had the option of sallying forth so they usually planned for that outcome. (At least wise generals did.) They're certainly won't be standing around stark naked covered in garnish and carrying placards saying 'eat me I'm yours& quot.

Now history is full of famous examples of this type of fight but the outcomes are limited to one of the following broad outcomes

A) The besieged citizens sortie but their attempt is detected and they are driven back inside with both sides suffering losses. However they manage to hold the gates behind them. Outcome - siege continues.

B) As per (A) Above but they can't hold the gates the fighting moves on into the city, usually because the besiegers outnumber the besieged they win. But regardless of the outcome the siege ends. Probleem opgelos.

C) They sortie and catch the besiegers unaware. The besieging army is defeated and retreats. Siege ends, problem solved. (Perhaps they return later but for the moment at least the siege is lifted.)

Point is none of these options are going to deliver enough protein to the city to solve the problem. As long as the attacking general is content to just starve out the defenders without sending troops to assault the walls your city can't access 'fresh meat' without coming out to fight for it. And they will never be able to collect sufficient to feed everyone for long because the only scenario where they are left alone to harvest their prize is the one where they win and the siege is lifted anyway.

One final point - most cultures have a universal prohibition against cannibalism, they will do it in desperate situation (and yes this is a desperate situation) but before they 'stoop' to the level of eating human flesh some of the citizens will consider another entirely plausible option which was also common during sieges.

Betrayal - someone somewhere will consider trading safe access to the city at night to the enemy in exchange for food and protection. It happened repeatedly in historical sieges.

Human flesh is remarkably nutritious and you could likely survive on a diet of humans for quite a long period. That being said, there are reasons why no species or culture has ever evolved that relies primarily on cannibalism, mainly that it's not exactly easy to make a living hunting prey that has senses and intelligence equal to yours. Investing that much effort into every single hunt would very rapidly doom your culture. This is less of a problem in a wartime situation, since people are dropping dead all the time, but if you want your city to survive entirely on cannibalism, you have to take into account how good humans are at avoiding getting eaten.

Diseases, especially prion diseases, would also be a huge problem, just as they were in real-world cultures that practiced cannibalism. Kuru, for instance, is a neurodegenerative prion disease that was once prevalent on the island of Papua, where it was spread almost entirely through ritual cannibalism among the indigenous population. It's incurable even with modern technology and has an extremely long incubation period (in some cases as long as 50 years), making it basically undetectable as well. In general, eating your own species is risky, since anything that made your prey sick can also make you sick.

All in all, it's doable in the short-term, but your city is massively screwed if it has to rely exclusively on cannibalism for a longer period of time. It might be safer to just turn your foes' bones into fertilizer to grow better crops (bone is actually pretty good for this).

It has happened in the past, like in the case of the whaler Essex

Essex was an American whaler from Nantucket, Massachusetts, which was launched in 1799. In 1820, while at sea in the southern Pacific Ocean under the command of Captain George Pollard Jr., she was attacked and sunk by a sperm whale. Thousands of miles from the coast of South America with little food and water, the 20-man crew was forced to make for land in the ship's surviving whaleboats.

The men suffered severe dehydration, starvation, and exposure on the open ocean, and the survivors eventually resorted to eating the bodies of the crewmen who had died. When that proved insufficient, members of the crew drew lots to determine whom they would sacrifice so that the others could live. A total of seven crew members were cannibalized before the last of the eight survivors were rescued, more than three months after the sinking of the Essex.

some of them managed to survive on that forced diet. And they didn't have a supply of fresh water

they didn't worry too much about cooking their meal, because for obvious reason when on a shipwreck in the middle of the ocean wood is not exactly the most abundant resource.

Probably Not

The human body, naturally, contains all the basic nutrients a human needs to survive. So as long as you're careful to eat all of it (grind up the bone to put in sausages, drink/use the blood in cooking, eat most of the organs) you'll get everything you need from cannibalism to survive. It might not be the perfect diet, I'm not an expert in all the vitamins and minerals a human needs to know if there's Some Specific Thing which you'll be somewhat deficient in if you only eat people which might lead to long-term complications. But the diet will be at least as "healthy" as a normal medieval diet.

That being said, how many corpses would you need? James Cole estimates an adult human body contains on average 125,822 calories. Source Caloric consumption for an adult human is roughly 2,000 calories a day. (Cole believes that a modern human's average need is 2,4000 calories a day. Not sure why, so I'm sticking with 2,000 as the more widely-accepted figure.) That implies a single human body could feed 62.9 people for a day. Of course there's going to be "wastage" in the corpse as you're unlikely to eat 100% of it. Assuming 15% wastage (loss of caloric value from spilled blood/missing bits from hacking your victim to death outside the walls, etc) means your average corpse feeds 53 people a day. Call it 50 in round numbers. So for every 50 defenders in your castle, you need to kill one attacker every day AND recover the corpse. Of course, you might not get "just" humans in your attack. I couldn't find a full-body caloric assessment, but just the muscle mass of a horse yields 359,100 calories. Assuming that's the maximum value you can get (medieval horses were smaller, there's some wastage which may or may not offset whatever added caloric value the blood and bones get you) a horse can feed about 179 people a day. But as cavalry aren't really "storm the walls" troops, you can't rely on the enemy keeping horses anywhere near enough for you to snag. So the question becomes, can the defenders achieve a kill ratio of 1 attacker per day for every 50 defenders?

I believe the answer is a firm "No." Assuming the enemy has 2x the amount of men as the defenders (Since 2x would preclude the defenders just sallying out en-mass but is less than the 3x generally thought sufficient to storm a fortified position with a chance of success) That would involve inflicting Meer as 1% casualties on the enemy every day for as long as you need to live purely off human flesh. Sieges were long, drawn out affairs. The enemy likely will keep out of bowshot most of the time, relying on starvation to take its toll. This means any sally for "provisions" will require a force from the castle going at least 100 yards (and likely longer, depending on your bow tech) from the castle, into the enemy camp, killing some of them, and then dragging the bodies back. The dragging back is the killer here. I can see a vicious and aggressive besieging force launching tons of attacks, and POSSIBLY inflicting a kill per 50 every day. But you have to get the body back, as intact as possible. At some point your enemy will realize you're literally eating him and do everything in his power to stop you.

Unless you're some sort of horror cult that cannibalizes in peacetime, they'll know you're low on food. The attacker will simply pull back even further, fortify the siege lines even more heavily, and fight like hell to protect their dead from desecration. Which means you won't recover every corpse. Which means you need to kill even MORE of the enemy. As a 1% daily attrition rate would end the siege in a max of 80 days (the point where your besieged force significantly outnumbered the attackers that started 2x the size) Killing even MORE of them makes the whole concept of your defenders being besieged to the point they need to eat the enemy dead redundant.

You can offset this somewhat by the defenders eating their own dead as well, but that leads to diminishing returns. A starving person is a lot fewer calories than a healthy one, and likely deficient in key nutrients that would cascade as anyone eating them wouldn't get those nutrients from the corpse. Though I admit I'm not sure how long one could live eating your own dead while "augmenting" any missing nutrients from enemy corpses, the end result still seems like you'd need to many deaths to keep the siege viable, one way or the other.