War and Military History

War and Military History encompasses the causes and effects, the courses and actions, the good and the bad, of warlike activities - from the earliest of times to present actions.

Asked in History, Politics & Society, US Civil War, War and Military History

What advantage did the South have over the North during the Civil War?

User Avatar
Southern Advantages (Northern Disadvantages) Fighting a Defensive War To stand on the defensive meant that the North had to invade and carry the fight to the South. This allowed the South to prepare and receive the enemy, although Lee was not a passive man by any standards. The South did not have many advantages, but just like in the American Revolution, it's very difficult to conquer an area. Essentially the South only had to muster the will to keep fighting until the North felt like quitting. That didn't happen, but theoretically it could have.(But it did not, for multiple reasons. Including the lack of previsions, lack in number of men, & a superior navy & rail road system.) When Southerners said that they merely wanted to secede from the Union they gave themselves a military advantage. Thus the North had to attack.(The North did not attack first, the South did.) The geography of the South favored the defender over the attacker. In particular, most of the rivers in the South run east to west. Thus as Union forces attempted to move south they had to cross all the rivers and the Confederates could defend them. Also, the fact that the Cenfederacy was simply defending itself meant that the Northern forces had to invade and occupy virtually the entire South before they could claim victory. That was a monumental task.(The North had a 3 part plan to defeat the South. 1) blockade the south 2) split the south using the MR river 3) take control of the capital of the confederates. Geographically speaking, the South was exposed.) Fighting Spirit The South had soldiers who were devoutly dedicated to preserving the Southland.(They wanted to preserve the individuals rights. They also wanted to start the Confederacy, which would hold the state's rights over the federal control.) The South were the ones who started this war, they want to finish it. They were the ones with a motive. The North just wants to put the country back together. (How this is a advantage is unclear.) The North included "border" states like Maryland which had large populations of Southern sympathizers. The North constantly had to fight to keep up popular support for the war. Motivation. The South was fighting to preserve their homes from an intruder. The North on the other hand was fighting to preserve the union. To abolish slavery was added later, and this was cold comfort to most Northerners who had never seen a slave before. (This is an advantage? For the Confederate states?) The Southern population, at least the white population, were more united than that of the North. In the North there was always a substantial political sentiment, based on various reasons, for not fighting the war and letting the South go in peace.(Not completely true, the boarder lines of states were general. Supporters for the South could be found in the North, and vise verse.) The North was the invader. When troops approached the end of their volunteer enlistment, they wanted to go home. The Southern troops were fighting for their style of life, so they hung in there. (Draft was placed on both sides.) Fighting on Their Own Soil They were fighting on mostly native territory, thus they were more familiar with the ground. The theater of war was primarily in the South which was its home territory. Obviously the theater of war was well known to the South. The North was in enemy territory and was unfamiliar with the terrain. Since the Southerners were defending their own soil they were intimately familiar with the territory while the Northerners had to rely on maps. Military Leadership The majority of the best leaders were Southern born. When the South left the Union, these soldiers went with their home states. Military leadership of the South consisted of many Mexican War veterans. The North had some experienced officers. However(,) the North's leadership was inferior to the South. Throughout the Civil War, Lincoln was trying to find generals that could win. Many say Grant was the only good general the North had. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Longstreet, Forest, Stuart, the list could continue. The South was blessed with officers who knew how to fight and make the best of bad situations. A big portion of the Union's finer officers were from the South, and were more loyal to their home states when faced with the choice. Robert E. Lee is of course the most notable example, and would have been the first choice to command the Army of the Potomac if he had remained in the Union army. Military Aptitude The average Southerner had at some point in his life hunted for food. This meant he could live off of the land, knew how to shoot and how to suffer the misery that was camp life. Many of the North's soldiers came from urban areas where they had never seen a rifle before they enlisted. The South had better soldiers at the beginning. At the onset of the war, the North was not prepared to fight a war. Military readiness of soldiers at the beginning of the war was superior in the South. Young men were accustomed to outdoor life, guns and horses that were part of rural life. The North had a large portion of immigrants and urban raised individuals not accustomed to outdoor life, guns and horses. They had a facility at adapting their strategies to guerilla warfare, although this tactic was overshadowed by the age old battle line which caused so much death at Gettysburg.(Guerilla warfare was not practiced yet. Ambuses were, surprise attacks. The battle line was tossed aside as a poor battle strategy in the Revolutionary War, the British used it & the Rebels used cover.) The majority of Northern recruits were city born or worked on farms. They were not used to living off of the land. Southerners were used to hunting and living rough. What this meant was that the Southern troops knew how to shoot and live hard. This was something that the Northern troops had to learn over time. Interior Lines The South had interior lines. By this I mean, the South could use the rail network it had to transfer troops from unthreatened theaters to those where they were needed.(The North had the railroad system, the North was further industrialized. The South had little to no rail road system.) The South had short interior supply and communication lines. The North had long supply and communication lines that were exposed to the enemy. Firearms Experience * Southern individuals often contained substantial hunting experience, and more substantial proficiency with firearms than Northerners as hunting was a facet of Southern culture. They fought on their own soil, so they did not have to travel far to the battle grounds They had better generals, like Robert E. Lee, and the famous Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson The south grew cotton, which Europe needed. They got money from plantation crops Most of their soldiers were farmers, so they were strong. They had raw materials, which the north could not make things without south's raw materials. The weather was also an advantage, since it was cold, northern soldiers slowed down and had to wait out snow storms The south could position troops and repair their defenses while North waited for spring.
Asked in US Civil War, War and Military History, Slavery

What caused the US Civil War?

User Avatar
Slavery The primary reason for the Civil War was the issue of slavery, more importantly the economic value it had to the South. The secession act of South Carolina specifically mentions that the North wanted to take away the property (slaves) of the South. The North's economy was not dependent on slavery and did not see the existence of the "peculiar institution" as the South did. However, it is important to remember that by no means was every Northerner an abolitionist; in fact, the racism and anti-African American sentiment sometimes surpassed that of the South in US history. The US Supreme Court had ruled in several cases that slavery was legal in the USA. Lincoln had no intention to stop slavery in the South. He said that many times. The problem the South had was that they believed Lincoln would do all he could to prevent slavery from expanding into territories that would eventually become States. Federalism Why did the southern states want to secede? Because they felt that they should have powerful states rights and a less powerful central government (one that might remove slavery and otherwise dominate the South's economy). The Crittenden-Johnston Resolution stated that the war was being fought not to interfere with the southern way of life, but to keep the union together. This was Lincoln's justification to militarily end secession. Another economic point was the issue of tariffs, an issue that goes back the the Jackson era. The South hated the tariffs because it hurt their economy, while Northern merchants loved them because they protected their industries. Abraham Lincoln Abraham Lincoln wasn't exactly liked by the South, given that he didn't even show up on the ballot in a couple states in the South. Lincoln claimed that any man who supported secession would be convicted of treason. The South claimed that secession was a Constitutional right when the government failed to support the interests of the people. Although Lincoln said he wasn't going to emancipate the slaves in his inaugural, South Carolina succeeded shortly after Lincoln became president. The South went to war to protect their rights. It had NOTHING to do with slavery. No Slavery in the West The fights over the status of slavery in the western territories were a harbinger to the future Civil War. The events like the admission of Missouri resulting in the Missouri Compromise and the admission of Kansas/Nebraska resulting in the Compromise of 1850 were only concessions that prolonged the Civil War. Additionally, these events over the balance of slave/free states would split the political parties. Although they temporarily abated the difference between the insatiability of the South for slavery and the desire for industry in the North, it was only a matter of time before the lines between the slave/free states became the Mason-Dixon line. --- The Civil War was not fought because of slavery. Slavery only became an issue after the Emancipation Proclamation, although some people in the North were pushing for war to stop slavery. The war was fought because the North did not think that the Southern states were allowed to secede. --- The US Civil War was the largest war for America, then and even to a degree looking forward from 1865 onwards. The answer to the cause of the war is as large as the war itself. The best way to answer this question is with this statement. The US Civil War was the result of Southern slave states believing that their way of life, slavery, and its economics were becoming marginalized. Marginalized to such a degree that independence from the United States was the best chance for the South to thrive. The American Civil War had many causes. Some include economic differences between the North and the South, states rights versus federal rights, and of course whether or not slaves should be legal. 1. abolition of slavery
Asked in Pearl Harbor, War and Military History, Japan in WW2

Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?

User Avatar
The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because they wanted to control the Pacific Ocean. The Japanese purpose was to destroy Pearl Harbor to make the Americans force less, useless and purposeless. The outcome resulted in the opposite. So that US would surrender and not fight back in WW2. Essentially, the Japanese attack the US Navy at Pearl Harbor so that the United States would not be able to interfere with Japan's expansion in the Pacific. While the attack slowed the US response, it did not prevent intervention.
Asked in War and Military History, Gulf War

What are the causes of the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991?

User Avatar
Answer 1 Saddam Hussein ordered Iraqi troops to invade the sovereign nation of Kuwait to plunder its wealth, oil was involved in an indirect way in that most of the Kuwaiti wealth was due to oil production. But the world stepped in when an aggressive dictatorship invaded an established nation with the purpose of seizing its land and resources. Answer 2 Well, the first reason was because Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Kuwait is a tiny but wealthy neighbor of Iraq in the gulf. Iraq invaded them in order to plunder its wealth and because of its westernized culture, and the fact that they had no real way of defending themselves against such a powerful adversary. Answer 3 Operation Desert Storm, also known as the "100 Hour War" was to eject Iraqi forces from the nation of Kuwait. Which was done between (approximately) 15 January to February 26 of 1991. The dictionary defines a military campaign as a military operation with a specific objective and lasting normally only one season in the field. This definition applies to Operation Desert Storm; which also had a US Postage Stamp designating Operation Desert Storm in about 1992. Military service personnel were awarded campaign ribbons for service in SOUTHWEST ASIA for this particular military campaign. Answer 4 Iraq invaded Kuwait. As Kuwait is a big oil supplier to the West, the powers that be in the West decided to do something about it. Answer 5 Saddam Hussein the dictator of Iraq ordered his military into Kuwait because he wanted to make the Kuwaitis pay for the Iran-Iraq War. Answer 6 This was to protect the Kuwait people from the Iraqis when they tried to steal their oil. Saddam Hussein was greedy. Answer 7 Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, attacked Kuwait. Kuwait was (still is) an oil-rich nation, and of great interest to the United States. At the time, the United States was actually justified in intervening in this event, because one of our major national interests was at stake. This was a clear-cut aggressive act by Iraq that warranted action. Answer 8 In 1991, the United States led the coalition in a war against Iraq. Iraq was told to leave the country of Kuwait. They refused. The US/Coalition removed them by force, during Operation Desert Storm (Jan-Feb 1991). Answer 9 In 1990 Iraq moved into the country of Kuwait. The US told them to leave Kuwait. In 1990 the US commenced the buildup of military forces to remove Irag from Kuwait, under In Feb 1991, Iraq retreated from Kuwait; Desert Storm was successfully completed. Answer 10 Iraq, without justification or excuse, invaded and conquered Kuwait in order to gain control of its oil wealth and, quite possibly, as a prelude to doing the same thing to Saudi Arabia. The United States, with modest help from allies and other Arab states assembled a large army and forced Iraq out. The gulf war was caused in the most part by Saddam Hussein's need for oil. He had amassed a huge debt with western Europe during the Iran-Iraq war and needed some way of re-paying that money. Hussein had also caught Kuwait exceeding quota's set out by OPEC which drove the price of oil down and making Iraq lose money. Iraq did also not have direct access to the Persian Gulf which would help in the exporting and importing of goods. Saddam considered Kuwait as being a rogue providence. He also disliked Kuwait due to the fact it is mainly Shi'ite. From everything I have read, Saddam apparently brought it up to one of his closest allies, the French, and received little to no resistance on the thought of an invasion. During this period, the Iraq government was the top buyer of French military goods and the French had the majority of oil contracts in the country. Saddam was on the verge of canceling the Russian contracts and awarding them to the French. Saddam also accused the Kuwait government of stealing oil from the oil rich Basra area. Apparently their rigs were very close to the borders and Saddam felt that the oil was coming from Iraq's reserves. America's involvement in the war was started by Kuwait asking for help getting invaders out of their country. The Gulf War, aka Desert Storm, was the result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Answer 11 There were no innocent parties in that war. The whole thing started when Kuwait used a "slant drill"--a machine that can drill an oil well at an angle--to tap the al-Rumaila oilfield. There was historical enmity as well--Iraq had borrowed $14 billion from Kuwait to pay for the Iran-Iraq War. They were going to attempt to pay the debt by forcing the price of oil up, but Kuwait dumped a LOT of oil on the market, causing the price to go down. On July 25, 1990, US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie told Saddam Hussein, "we have no opinion on Arab-Arab issues, such as your border disagreement with Kuwait." Saddam translated that to mean, "we don't care what you do" and, on August 2, annexed Kuwait into Iraq. Minor Correction Desert Storm is often thought to be another name for the Gulf War, but it is not. It was the second phase of the Coalition strategy to oust Iraq from Kuwait. The first phase was to defend Saudi Arabia, and it was called Operation Desert Shield which lasted for months. Desert Storm began when the first bombs were dropped on Baghdad, and bombings continued daily for more months. After Coalition forces crossed the Saudi-Iraqi border, Basra was quickly captured and Operation Desert Storm was concluded after a few days. And another thing..... The causes of the Gulf War can be traced back to World War 1, and the betrayal of the Arabs by the British and French. For siding with the Allies against the Ottoman Empire, Prince Faisal was allowed to have Iraq, but Kuwait which had previously been part of this land was not included.
Asked in World War 2, War and Military History, D-Day

What does the 'D' in D-Day stand for?

User Avatar
The 'D' in D-Day "D-Day" and "H-Hour" are general terms used for the day and hour to mark the beginning of an important event. By far the most well-known D-Day is June 6, 1944, when the Allied invasion of German-occupied France began in WWII. The "D" was used to mark the day that a particular operation was to begin. Each operation had a D-day and an H-hour. Because D-Day of Operation Overlord was the largest amphibious assault in military history, it became the popular expression to refer to June 6, 1944, and was not used to mark the first day of an operation thereafter - as far as I know. It basically took on the persona that the phrase "9/11" has taken to refer to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. General Eisenhwer and Winston Churchill may have tried to give the "D" an actual meaning for the benefit of the press and the civilians, but previous to that, it did not stand for anything except "day" (as noted previously). Another response Indeed, D = Day and H = Hour, but I will elaborate a little: The invasion (or any major operation) was planned way in advance without a date being assigned for commencement. This was done for security reasons and to keep the element of surprise so that the enemy response would be minimal. For purposes of planning, you assumed the operation would start at D-Day and H-hour, with the day and time to be determined later. Then you can plan for how things will proceed, starting from Day 1 - 0 hour and start counting as in D+1 day, D+2 day, etc. Only at the last minute did anyone know what day the whole thing would actually take place. With June 6, 1944, for example, they had to wait on the weather, amongst other things.
Asked in History of the United States, War and Military History, Mexico, Mexican-American War

What lands did the US acquire from Mexico after the Mexican War?

User Avatar
The whole states of California, Nevada, Utah and Texas, as well as parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma and Kansas. The original US-Mexico border was defined by the Sabine River north from the Gulf of Mexico to the 32nd parallel north (32°N), then due north to the Red River, west along the Red River to the 100th meridian west (100°W), due north to the Arkansas River, west to its headwaters, north to the 42nd parallel north (42°N), and finally west along that parallel to the Pacific Ocean. Texas was lost during the Texas Revolution (1835-1836). Territory of Texas at the time included present-day Texas, as well as those parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming described above. During the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) Mexico lost all the remaining territories, including present-day California, Nevada, Utah and the rest of Colorado as well as most of northern New Mexico and Arizona. Also at the end of the war Mexico was forced to cease any attempt on reclaiming Texas. This is also known as the Mexican Cession (1848). During the Gadsden Purchase (1853), Mexico sold parts of southern Arizona and New Mexico to the United States. This was the only peaceful purchase of land made from Mexico.
Asked in War and Military History, The Battle of Hastings, Middle Ages

Why did William win the Battle of Hastings?

User Avatar
Some factors in William's victory, which was not a foregone conclusion: Harold having to bring a good number of his troops on a long march from the battle of Stamford Bridge against the vikings (and some of the forces involved there staying in the north) Harold's possible impetuous commitment to battle, when another day's wait would have increased his numbers. The battle site was not badly chosen by Harold, and his lack of archers not a major problem. Mid-way through the battle, one flank of the Norman attack (The Bretons) had crumbled and retreated, but a counter-attack by the Saxons had left them out of formation and exposed, suffering very heavy causalities. It was this tactic repeated deliberately which seems to have turned the battle. A faked retreat (dangerous, in case it turns into a real one) tempted the Saxons from their shield wall and hill. Whether this was the ill-discipline of troops acting without orders or a terrible decision by Harold is not known. Apart from the immediate losses, against a disorganized formation the re-deployment of archers was more effective. The battle which need not have been lost, was. More Input: Harold Godwinson's army was tired. The English army had already fought the Battle of Stamford Bridge that day. They had to race down to the small village of Hastings. Williams army was rested. Part of Harold's army got left behind on the trip down. Harold's army did not cooperate well. Harold's army did have the right weapons. Harold got shot. When he heard the hiss of an arrow he had looked up and the arrow struck him right in the eye. The death of Saxon leaders. Harold's men saw Haley's Comet and they thought that it was a bad omen. William had organized his army better. William was clever and he used his talents in the right way. Williams army was stronger. He had good troops and better trained soldiers. They were better armed. William used cavalry and archers whereas Harold did not. Williams men believed in him and promised to reward them. William had been promised the throne by Edward. The Normans also had the Pope's blessing and banner. William was a good tactition. Williams Norman army played tricks on the English army. William pretended to flee so many of Harold's men turned to retreat but as they did William and his army turned back and fired. Here is more input from others: Duke William was victorious at Hastings not because of any superior armour, weapons or tactical ability, but simply because his forces were the more flexable of the two. Once the English had decided to stand behind their shield wall and allow the Normans to gradually wear them down, the outcome was inevitable. This tactic was too defensive and couldn't be be used effectively against a mainly cavalry army like the Normans had. Another myth about Hastings is that once Duke William had won he was completely victorious. In fact he spent the next 6 years fighting the remaining English forces before finally achieving success. Duke William of Normandy won the battle of Hastings is because At nine o'clock in the morning of the 14th, the Normans began to advance. Spears and arrows flew in all sorts of directions. Both sides fought on foot, although the Normans also used horses later in the day with a tremendous amount of effect. Suddenly, there was a rumour that Duke William of Normandy was dead. He wasn't really dead-and he took of his helmet and stood on stirrups to shout to his men. Then William and his half-brother, Bishop Odo, started a furious cavalry charge. Norman soldiers on horseback charged at the Saxons just when the Saxons thought they were winning. Time and time again the Normans used this technique to break through the Saxon shield wall. Gradually the Saxon line broke up and the Saxons were pushed back. At dusk the Saxon army fell back into the shelter of trees. Harold's bodyguards' were left to fight on alone. They formed a semi-circle around him. The situation was very desperate. According to one tradition recorded in the Bayeux Tapestry, Harold was struck in one eye by and arrow and was hacked about so badly that only his mistress,Edith Swan-Neck could identify him. The main reasons were luck and numbers. If for instance it had rained (which was very likely in English October) the slope up which the Normans attacked would have been very difficult for man and horse. The English were outnumbered because Harold decided to take the initiative. Remember he had recently beaten Harald Hardraga the foremost soldier of his age. Harold was therefore confident. If he had only waited a day or 2 more, victory would have been almost certain. Here is a summary of what happened in 1066: King Edward dies Harold Godwinson gets crowned king Harald Hadraada attacks North and fights Harold Godwinson (Battle of Stamford Bridge) Harold Godwinson wins and next day William of Normandy attacks South Coast Harold Godwinson marches his army South Battle of Hastings begins The state of Harold Godwinson's army before the Battle of Hastings: Harold Godwinson's army wasn't in a great state for the battle. The weaknesses in Harold Godwinson's army were that they had all just marched 226 miles (363 km) so they were tired, they didn't have as many soldiers as William, they had just fought so some soldiers were down and some were wounded, their weapons weren't as good as Williams army's weapons and some members were giving up. The state of William of Normandy's army before the Battle of Hastings William of Normandy's army was in a good state for the battle. The advantages in William of Normandy's army were that they were well relaxed (they'd been waiting in the South for 9 days), they had around fresh soldiers who were all ready for battle. There are a number of various reasons why William Duke of Normandy won the Battle of Hastings. William and his army had landed on the South Coast expecting the enemy there, waiting for them. But they were over joyed to find out that nobody was there to meet them. William and his troops were expecting Harold Godwineson and his army to be there, waiting to meet them and start the battle. But instead, Harold and his army were at the North, fighting Harald Hadraada and his army. No wonder they were over joyed. So they decided to have a feast and get a good night's rest. They now knew that Harald Hadraada and his army had attacked Harold and his troops and were fighting a battle, so they knew that Harold couldn't reach them quickly. So they had the feast and had a good night's sleep, and woke up the next morning, fresh and ready to fight the battle. Meanwhile Harold and his army were up at north, fighting Harald Hadraada and his troops, and then, very luckily, Harold gave his enemy, Harald, a blow that killed him. He sent his army home. Then, on this very triumphant day, Harold received very bad news: the William and the Normans had reached the South Coast and were getting ready to fight Harold. So Harold had to gather his army again, just as they were all tired out from fighting the battle and winning it for him. And he still had to pay them taxes. Harold's army weren't at all happy when he sent for them. He and his army got ready to fight William, and they set off, marching, to get to the South Coast. So Harold and his army were tired out from all that fighting and now they had to go and fight another battle, which was just too bad luck! When Harold and his army reached Hastings, and stopped there to rest for a bit, they found out that William and his troops were there. So they met William and fought the Battle of Hastings, and, very luckily for him that was, William struck Harold in the eye, which made him stumble around in pain for a while before he was killed. William had been promised the throne by Edward, or so he claimed. After Harold beat the viking army of Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge, he had to march to Hastings to meet William. The Saxon shield wall of Harold held strong, but Williams men feinted a flee. Harolds men followed to route the Normans, breaking their shield wall. The Normans turned and caught the Saxons off guard defeating them. Another important issue was the Norman mounted knights. The development of steers for the Normans gave them a superior advantage over the unmounted Saxons. Harold had to march his men to Stamford bridge near York and battle the vikings then take them south again. Harold lost some of his best men at Stamford and he was just unlucky. William had more and better men. Harold's men were not disciplined. Harold was killed in the middle of the battle. The area Hastings was fought in was very different then to now, being almost entriely Fenlands. William landed in a cul de sac and it was important for him to break out. Harold rushed down from Stanford Bridge to hem William in. At the only exit to the Fenland was a high hill, Harold won the race and occupied it. Harold had 6000 troops arriving the following day if William waited a day he had lost the campaign so he chose to attack Harold at a huge disadvantage. It was one of the closest battles in history, for six hours the Normans attacked and the Saxon shield wall held. Until at dusk the Normans launched one last desperate assault on the Saxon left flank. It enjoyed a little success and Harold was forced to commit his reserve, Huscarls led by himself. It was during this assault he was struck by an arrow and killed. Effectively a lucky shot not only won the battle and the war but saved the Normans from annihalation on the following day. William won the battle of Hastings because his troops were well prepared. Wiliiam used clever and well planned tactics to fool Harold's army. Part of the victory was down to luck. While Harold Gowinson was up near York At Stamford bridge, The Normans were able to cross the channel. This meant that Harold had to march his troops down to the small village, Hastings to fight the battle against William. This put Harold at a disadvantage, because some of his best fighters had died at the battle of Stamford bridge, and all Harold's troops were tired. My uncle who used to work as a tour guide at battle abbey said that William had an idea for some of his army to look like they were running away from the battle, so a large chunk of Harold's army followed the people who were fleeing, but little did they no a trap was set. When the people who were following the fleeing people got to a point, some of Williams army surprised them and killed them. Leaving Harold's defenses small and out numbered. Harold had been waiting on the south English coast for William to make a move from Normandy, then amassing his multi-national army. William waited until Harold's army had almost depleted their food reserves, etc. But a huge Norwegian Viking army of '300 ships' (maybe 12-18,000 men)under the fearsome King Harald Hardrada('hard ruler') invaded northern England, with Tostig(Harold's own brother, still irate that his brother didn't help him keep his earldom a year earlier), advanced to near York and routed a Saxon army in battle, at ''Fulford Gate''(20th Sept 1066) Harold agonized, but decided to speed-ride north 190miles to beat the Norse, then dash back hopefully in time to defend the realm against William, who might invade anytime. This Harold did- he surprised the Norsemen and in a bloody and costly victory at ''Stamford Bridge''(25th Sept), the English slaughtered the Norsemen, Hardrada & Tostig. Harold dashed back south again, having just got word of the Norman's landing on the south coast(29th Sept), and made for London to arrange for battle. His messengers had already ridden ahead to the western and southern shires to raise another fyrd(farmer/soldiers owing 2mnths annual war service). Crucially, he had had to leave his archers and many infantrymen- who were marching the hard slog on foot, and would be weary/late for battle. On the 13th October, Harold uncharacteristically ignored the wise advice of his brother Gyrth(who said he instead would lead the half-prepared army, then Harold could lead a second)ordered every available man to follow him, and again marched, this time the 58m south to Senlac hill- originally intending to meet the fyrdsmen there(still coming in from the north/shires) before a possible night attack on the Normans then in their wooden stockade at Hastings harbor, 7m south. But William's scouts found the gathering English there, and William marched north quickly. Now the two armies would fight here(Senlac, wrongly called the battle of Hastings), the Normans/French/Bretons on the low, marshy ground and the English/some Danes tightly packed atop the narrow, steep ridge above, half-mile wide. Harold's men were in a great position, guarded on their flanks by marshes/woods, and a steep incline ahead- but they were exhausted after their recent marches and previous battle. King Harold of England had traveled to the far North of England to do battle with the invading Vikings, whom he defeated at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. He was making his return to Winchester (then the capital of England), and disbanding his army as he went, when he got news that William, Duke of Normandy had invaded at Hastings on the South Coast. Harold immediately recalled his men and made a forced march South. The speed with which Harold's army moved took William by surprise and as a consequence Harold was able to choose his ground to his best advantage. Harold had the high ground, but he suffered from two disadvantages; First, he had just fought a battle in the North and had lost many men that he had not had time to replace, and Second, having marched the length of Britain his men were exhausted. In spite of this he managed great discipline and fought off charge after charge from the mostly mounted knights of William. His shield wall proving impossible to break. William then made a mass charge with 75% of his cavalry, instructing them to break off quickly and appear to desert the field. This they did. Many of Harold's men, convinced they had finally won the day ran down the hill after them, on foot. By the time they reached the bottom of the hill Williams remaining cavalry cut them off while the 'retreating' horsemen turned back and slaughtered them. This seriously weaken Harold's position and he was no longer able to withstand the repeated cavalry charges. It is almost certain that the story of Harold being shot in the eye with an arrow is a myth. However, he was certainly killed on the battlefield that day in 1066 and William had his victory.
Asked in War and Military History, Video Games

How do you get honor points in global war?

User Avatar
Try to keep the civilian deaths to a minimum would be a good start. Though the human race is not a endangered species so it would not hurt to cull the population in poor areas to give the rest a fair chance.
Asked in History of the United States, War and Military History, Mexico

Why did Texas want its independence?

User Avatar
Texians wanted to keep Texas as a slave state. First on the background of the war: When Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821, all the territories it possessed included Mexico, most of Central America (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica) as well as today's US States of California, Nevada, Utah, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and parts of Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming. Due to the extremely low population for such territorial extension (estimated at 12 million during 1824), Mexico relaxed its immigration policies, thus allowing American settlers to help populate the northern territories. The conditions to settle were simple: 1) to pledge allegiance to Mexico and 2) observe the Mexican Law and customs. In 1830, these laws incorporated the banning of slavery. Due to the fact that many American settlers in such territories were slave owners, they looked for any pretext to break up with Mexico. Later, Mexican President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna took measures to transform Mexico from a Federal Republic to a Centralist Republic. This move prompted Yucatan and Texas to secede from Mexico. Santa Anna's government invaded both republics; while Yucatan was regained, Texas was lost. The Texas Revolution ended after the Battle of San Jacinto, but Mexico did not officially recognize the independence of Texas until after the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) as part of the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty.
Asked in World War 2, War and Military History, US in WW2

When did the US enter World War 2?

User Avatar
December 8, 1941 was the date of the US declaration of war, but in fact the US was at war on December 7, 1941 at about 7:55 AM when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. This war, while not unexpected, was not the war the US wanted to be in because it was felt that Germany was the greater threat. Hitler didn't declare war against the US until December 11, 1941, in support of his Axis agreements with Japan.
Asked in US Civil War, History of the United States, War and Military History

Name one problem that lead to the civil war?

User Avatar
The well-meant attempt to put the slavery question to a local vote in each new state. When they tried it in Kansas, the voters were intimidated by mounted terrorists from outside the state. This demonstrated that the slavery question was likely to spark a war.
Asked in Vietnam War, History of the United States, War and Military History

How many US soldiers died in the Vietnam War?

User Avatar
58,196 names have been listed on the Vietnam wall. However, Does 58,168 cover the MIA's, the POW's, the many people that were spit on, shouted at, called "non-Americans" after what they were forced to do in Southeast Asia? Answer According to the Scholastic Encyclopedia of the United States at War, 58,168 U.S. troops died in Vietnam. Answer 58,000 Answer 58,196 names are listed on the Vietnam wall. Answer Most casualty figures I've seen say 45,000. I'm not positive, but I think those are KIAs and not a mixture of KIAs and wounded. There are also approximately 10,000 MIAs, who may or may not be dead. Answer There are nearly 60,000 names on the Vietnam wall now. We have been adding over the last few years the names of the veterans who have passed on. The numbers were approx. 58,929 last I looked. Answer About 58,000 Americans died of combat related injuries. There were a lot of casualties. 58,159 The Vietnam Conflict resulted in an estimated 58,000 US casualties. See the link:
Asked in Health, War and Military History, Afghanistan

How many Russian Soldiers died in Afghanistan?

User Avatar
Estimates vary, are you ready for this ? Probably in excess of 50 000 !
Asked in History, Politics & Society, War and Military History

Is guerrilla warfare still evident today?

User Avatar
Though guerrilla warfare is not the same as it was during the American Revolutionary War, it does still have a place in modern conflicts. For any group fighting a highly advanced force or a far larger opponent, guerrilla warfare is still a viable tactic. A very common example of this fighting style in the present day would be ongoing war between the United States and terrorist cells in the middle east. With the advanced weaponry, manpower, and combat intelligence of an organized military group, the United States has an advantage in nearly every category. However, the current war on terror has been so greatly prolonged because the extremists have a few strengths. The knowledge of terrain has always been an advantage for groups utilizing guerrilla warfare. While understanding the terrain, these groups may also have the support of the non-militant public of the nation at war. Finally, most groups taking part in this practice need not execute a tangible victory over their opponent, they need only to outlast their enemies, that is hold out until foreign aid is presented or the opponent gives up on the cause.
Asked in World War 2, Pearl Harbor, War and Military History

When did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?

User Avatar
Sunday, December 7, 1941 at 7:55 AM. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, was aimed at the Pacific Fleet of the United States Navy and its defending Army Air Forces and Marine air forces. The U.S. public saw the attack as a treacherous act and rallied against the Imperial Japan, causing the United States to enter World War II. Since the attack was on Sunday, the US was undermanned. The attack damaged or destroyed 12 American warships, destroyed 188 aircraft, and killed 2,403 American servicemen and 68 civilians. By 10 A.M. the last attack wave was on it's way back to the aircraft carriers that they took off from. A surprise attack, that went off smoothly and caught the Americans asleep . It was not by chance that the attack was timed for early on a Sunday morning. The Japanese had studied the habits of the US navy and knew that many men would be drunk and sleeping it off by that time. Many more would be " in town " and unable to take part in the defence of their ships. This attack has also been called the Bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Pearl Harbor but, most commonly, the Attack on Pearl Harbor or simply Pearl Harbor
Asked in War and Military History, US Army, US Marine Corps

Why do people go to war in the first place?

User Avatar
They want to defend their country. If it isn't their country they are doing it for other countries.
Asked in US Civil War, War and Military History

What is the Range of an old gatling gun?

User Avatar
400 to 600 yards, comparable to single-shot infantry rifles of the time.
Asked in US Civil War, War and Military History, Confederate States of America

Is Tennessee a Confederate or Union state?

User Avatar
Tennessee was Confederate state. However the people of the state were divided and many joined the Union army. Its capital, Nashville, fell early to the Union advance but many big and important battles were fought in the state. Many of the Union supporters in Tennessee were located in the eastern part of the state.
Asked in US Civil War, War and Military History

Which two armies fought the last battles of the Civil War?

User Avatar
The Union army under US Grant was meant to take care of Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia. It eventually succeeded - after the terrible siege of Petersburg, which was simply a slugging match, with Grant knowing that the Confederates could not replace their losses. The surrender came when Lee's lines were so stretched that they couldn't hold. The other Union army under Sherman was meant to destroy the Army of Tennessee under Joe Johnston (replaced by John Hood). It did not succeed in doing this. But Sherman had worked out his new strategy of attacking the infrastructure that supported the Confederate armies - devastating the rich farmland of Georgia and South Carolina. There were not enough enemy troops to stop him, although the talented Joe Johnston had been brought back to command what few Confederate units remained in that area. They surrendered about two weeks after Lee. The very last major engagement of Union and Confederate forces was the Battle of Palmito Ranch on May 12-13, 1865 between armies under the command of Union General Lew Wallace, and Confederate General John G. Walker, though neither general participated in the battle, and ended with a force of 300 Confederates defeating over 1700 Federals. Some historians, as well as, the Official Record of the Civil War consider this battle to be a post-war engagement, and the Battle of Columbus to be the true last battle. It is worth mentioning that the official record of any war is written by the winner of said war, in this case the Union, and has been suggested that Union officials refused to recognize a Confederate victory as the final battle, particularly when 1700 - 1900 Union troops were defeated by 300 - 400 Confederates. The last official battle of the Civil War was the Battle of Columbus on the Georgia/Alabama border on April 16, 1865, 2 days after Lincoln was killed, between Union General James H. Wilson, and Confederate General Howell Cobb and ended in a Union victory. On a side note: In the Battle of Columbus a Confederate soldier named John Pemberton was injured by the slash of a sabre, and it was this injury that led him to become a pharmacist after the war preoccupied with creating formulas for pain killers and ultimately leading to the invention of Coca-Cola. Also of note: Lew Wallace from Palmito Ranch, later gained notoriety as the Governor of New Mexico that offered a full pardon to Billy the Kid, but later reneged because of political pressure, and became somewhat famous as author of what was considered "the most influential Christian book of the nineteenth century" Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ.
Asked in War and Military History, History of Asia, History of the Mongol Empire

What was the mongol warriors significance to history?

User Avatar
The Mongol Hordes are significant to history because of its influences on warfare. The Mongols introduced a new aspect of warfare in the Middle Ages that was often overlooked: mobile logistics. The Mongols relied primarily on fighting on horseback; the majority of their army was comprised of cavalry. They often carried multiple horses per person to travel long distances without stopping, and relied on compact supplies like dried meat to avoid being slowed down by large supply wagon chains. This allowed them to travel several times faster than any other army at the time, which made it very difficult for generals to predict the movements of the Mongols. The Mongols used their extreme mobility to avoid strong enemy positions, and picked off weak areas by using hit-and-run tactics. This was expediated by the fact that most Mongol children were taught how to use the bow on horseback, which made it even harder for enemy forces to confront Mongol cavalry: the Mongols would simply run away from the enemy while shooting at them, making it nearly impossible to order conventional charges. This nullified numerical advantages of the opposition, which was unheard of at the time-most battles during the Middle Ages relied heavily on numerical superiority to overhwlem their enemies. The Mongols are employed extensive psychological warfare and introduced the darker aspects of a total war. They would exterminate all survivors of one battle to encourage others to surrender. The sight of Mongols stacking skulls into giant pyramids encouraged local governors and officials to capitulate rather than fight back. The nations of the time were unprepared for the unconventional tactics the Mongols used, and much of later warfare was influences by the Mongols.
Asked in War and Military History, Holocaust, Germany in WW2, Nazi Concentration Camps

How did concentration camps stop operating?

User Avatar
When it became obvious to the members of the German High Command that the war was lost, they began to order all prisoners marched out of the camps, and mass-marched in the direction away from the advancing armies. The camp, if ti was a work camp, was then abandoned, or if it was a death camp, it was destroyed, as best as they could. At least, that was the plan. But the Allies from every direction were advancing too fast, and many of the camps - including death camps - were captured intact, with prisoners still there.
Asked in War and Military History

Who is the best military special forces unit?

User Avatar
This is a matter of opinion, so there is no single correct answer. Here are som opinions and the reasoning: So far Russian Spetsnaz are famously known for being the best. Actually, I'd go with either the superbly trained Navy Seals or Britain's famed SAS as two of the best trained and deadliest special forces units on Earth, at least when it comes to hostage rescue/terrorist takedown missions where stealth, precision, timing, accuracy, nerve, great balance, quick shooting skills and these razor sharp, finely honed reflexes/instincts come into play. There is the Polish Grom, which where created in the 90s to protect Polish citizens behind the border, This unit was trainer by US Navy Seals, US Delta Force and British SAS, so i would say this is one of the best Special/Black ops units in the world. This is also a "Top Secret" unit, Nobody knows the identity of the soldiers and u can say the have No life. Yes the US Air Force does CCT's[Combat ConTrollers] who call in close air support on the ground for ground personnel. And PJ's ParaJumpers extremely well trained medics who usually go on missions with other Special Forces units in case someone gets shot. Joining the Air Force Special Forces is considered the easy way into the Special Forces community. No, not in any way. It, like the US Army Special Forces and Delta Force, as well as the American CIA's Special Operations Group, is a very well-trained and well-rounded group. There is no such thing as one "best" group. The US Navy SEALs, which any legitimate military expert will agree has the roughest physical training of any spec ops group in the world, are not, on average, nearly as crafty as the previously mentioned groups. On that note, though, many members of the SAS, US Army Special Forces, and etc. would be more than capable of being a SEAL, for example. Today, the most successful teams are made up of mutliple spec ops units, and are known as task forces. The one group experts have often declared to be the best is the CIA's NCS's SAD's SOG (Special Operations Group). It is made up entirely of ex-military men. Most have special operations experience, but some have combat experience only. All have performed excellently throughout their military careers, and many have advanced college degrees. The SAS and SBS are regarded by most military experts and officials from around the world to be the best. This is true for the following reasons: - British Army military doctrine and ethos. - Britain's massive and varied military experience. - The fact that SAS selection is regarded as the toughest selection process on the planet. - The fact that the SAS are the oldest and by far the most experienced Special Forces outfit in the world. - The fact that they pioneered the vast majority of Special Forces training methods, tactics, stratagem and techniques - and as a result have trained or modelled by a very large number of SF from around the world, such as DELTA, JTF2 and KSK. - The SAS have such wide varsity of skills within the regiment, this comes from only taking veteran soldiers from such highly trained regiments such as the Paras, RMC's and Royal engineers