As I think I've mentioned before, I've kind of run out of military historical engagements that really get my spider sense tingling. It's not that the history isn't there...it's just that it's either 1) not all that "interesting" in the sense that there's anything illuminating for a hobby historian like me to add, or 2) so "interesting" that it's been worked to death, so there really isn't anything to add because the ground has been worked over so hard.
I kept trying to find a handle on the 1916 Brusilov Offensive and ran into both problems.
It's "interesting" in that it's widely conceded to have been a pretty critical event in the First World War; the most tactically successful Russian operation - hell, on a "ground-gained" scale it was the most successful offensive operation, period, between August 1914 and November 1918 - during that time, but a strategic nullity and an extraordinarily bloody one that is proposed as one of the main drivers of the eventual revolutions and collapse of the tsarist government.
Unfortunately for me it's just more goddamn pointless WW1 bloodshed, and I think I pretty much did that to death at The Marne and Verdun.
The one piece of Brusilov that intrigues me is the Austro-Hungarian Army, the Kaiserliche und Konigsliche organization that had met Fredrick the Great and Napoleon (tho, admittedly, hadn't done all that well with them...) but was running out of time in 1916.
The problem with that is that much of the literature focuses on the Russian side of the hill. Unsurprising, given that the Russians are the big story. But the KuK was a big part, too - there's a reason that Brusilov went forward and his contemporaries didn't (Alexi Evert, commander of the Western Front, comes in for pretty massive stick from everyone I've read) - was because of problems inside the Austro-Hungarian defenses and the guys manning them, and it's been tough to find anyone who did a deep dig into that.
I'm still kind of intrigued by the KuK, tho. For fun I might do Sadowa/Koniggratz, the sort-of-last-gasp of the Austro-Hungarian imperium as the big player in Germanic affairs. We'll see.
For the rest, though?
I've pretty much done everything I find intriguing in North America, and I'm not familiar enough with South America (or interested enough, or speak and read enough Spanish) to go deeply into the fights there.
Six years ago I did take a stab at the Chaco War of the Nineteen Thirties and it still kind of intrigues me, but the sources are troubling for a non-Spanish speaker and the fight itself is just dire; one clusterfuck after another. I did a bunch of research for it, though, so I should really return to and finish it up some day.
Maybe.
Hmmm. What else?
I actually thought about writing up "Desert Saber", the February 1991 portion of the Second Gulf War, but I'm afraid that one's both been done to death and lacks an "interesting" factor. If anything it feels like a weird artifact of ancient history - a U.S. Army that effectively doesn't exist fighting an Iraq that the same American army returned, destroyed, occupied, and then abandoned having proved that the original stop-line in 1991 was the only really sensible decision made during the whole disaster.
There's some Boer War fights that have some pull at me, but nothing huge. It's all stuff like Spion Kop, which is just straight-up stupidity and massacre, or the grinding concentration-camp campaigns that defeated the Afrikaaners.
In Asia and the Middle East there's lots going on, but nothing that grabs me. Looked into Manzikert but the sources are really crap, and while the politics are kind of intriguing the fight itself is lame.
Someday I might write up one of the more peculiar 戦国時代, Sengoku Jidai engagements, but I'd have to find one that really hooks me; I'm neither particularly well qualified nor interested in the old chestnuts like Sekigahara (for one thing, the fight itself is really all about the treachery of Kobayakawa Hideaki, and we've done Bosworth and Stanley (bastard!) for that). Might keep poking to see if anything grabs me, but I'm not hopeful.
One I'm actually really intrigued by is the 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain. I still need a good source for it, though. Just ordered this,
...which I hope will give me enough to run with.
But that's kind of it.
Hard to think of what I'll do when I run out of "battles" pieces, but I can see the end from here.
16 comments:
For a look at the Austrian "take" on the Brusilov offensive you prob'ly should read
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus as it's author was a first hand observer.
So far as I can make out (and my command of the dialect "philosopy" is even shakier than my Spanish...) the TLP is almost exclusively concerned with the author's ideas rather than prosaic memoirs of his wartime service. Wittgenstein DID, however, leave several unpublished diaries or notebooks which have been since published here: https://wwnorton.com/books/9781324090809 and which do, indeed, suggest that the content is worthwhile. Wittgenstein is supposed to have been an artillery FO, meaning he was in harm's way quite a bit. I'll see what I can find.
Ever write about Hernando de Soto?
I'll be sad to see the end of the Battles posts. They've done a wonderful job of injecting some humanity and colour into the dry, sometimes quite dehumanising tracts produced by paid historians, and I've learned a lot. I don't know if you'd actually be interested, but I'd kind of hoped one day you might cover the Bathurst Wars, aka. "How the Central West was Won". My countrymen still live under the Oath of Silence taken by the British Empire took all those centuries ago, with the result that some of my friends will tell me with a straight face, "Colonisation is not a crime." I thought a nice summary of the Bathurst Wars to link to might help with slapping them out of it, but I'll probably end up having to write it myself, and other stuff keeps getting in the way. Oh well, look forward to reading the next one, whatever it ends up being.
Your pieces on battles and campaigns are fantastic, I always enjoy them.
I would like to see you do Blair Mountain if you are so moved.
Brian
Anon 9-20-22: No. De Soto in an interesting guy (in a sort of "horrible unless you were a 16th Century Spaniard" kind of way) and his tromp across the North American southeast seems to have been one atrocity after another. He was as much a part of the "Battle of North America 1492-1890" as Custer or Jackson. But I'm not sure there's a hook there that I didn't discuss in the posts about the Noche Triste (1520) or St. Clair's defeat (1789).
I'm not sure I have 1) a strong enough stomach to write up one of the many "battles" de Soto's gang fought between 1539 and '41, or 2) enough documentary evidence to really examine them. Supposedly there are only four primary sources for the expedition, and one (Garsilaso) is supposed to be highly dubious.
Still...worth a thought. Thanks.
Dane900 The colonial history of the Australia is something I'm reeeeeally unfamiliar with. And the summary of the "Bathurst War" on Wiki is just brutal; firearms versus stone axe" kind of butchery. I should take a look at the big picture of the south continent, tho. There's a lot of that stuff going on; the Maori put up some good fights, and I'm betting there were some others in New Guinea. Let me look around a bit.
Brian I've got Blair Mountain in the breech.
Well Chief I have always enjoyed all of your "Battles" series! Perhaps it would not be an exaggeration if I said it is my favourite thing on the internet (well, I guess take out internet porn and it is pretty much not an exaggeration :p). I find you work so spot on that this is perhaps the first time I will disagree with you on a post tagged "battles":
It's the whole way they are analyzed and delivered that makes them so special and unlike other histories you can find online, but if I had to quickly try to break it down, I think they are unique in:
1) The way you go through your sources before getting into the fray; particularly your latest focus in highlighting the paucity or contradictions of resources has been highly illuminating (and very interesting to see you go back and give the same treatment to some of the older articles)
2) The way you describe the battle with just the right mix of perspective of a historian, but also someone who understands how armies work
3) The point of view of how individual soldiers participating might feel about the whole affair. Something missing from most accounts and something that historians who have not themselves served and understand soldier life completely miss
4) You amazing way with prose, which makes the text so interesting and at the same time entertaining (for all the sometimes grim content, which you also do not shy away from and rightly highlight)
So based on the above I regret to inform you that I reject both of your points. Specifically:
1) Your "hobby historian" take always has something illuminating to add, even to seemingly uninteresting battles
2) Your treatment always adds something, even to battles worked to death (precisely because the formal historians miss so much)
So given your arguments are wrong, I am sorry to have to tell you that your conclusions and recommendations that there are not more battles for you to cover are not accepted! (give me some time to be more constructive, perhaps I need to think of some more battles to list, see if they could spark some interest for you)
Nestor: I am humbled. Thank you.
Despite the encouragement I am still hesitant to do more of the "big battle" pieces, for the reasons I stated, along with the reality that the "bigger" the engagement the more difficult it is to find a human handle on it. The research for the piece I did on Moscow back in 2009 was a caution, and I'm still not comfortable that I did a good job of it.
I would like to do more in Asia; looking back at Shanghaiguan I'm kind of embarrassed...but my problem is the original sources; I don't read or speak any of the most needed Asian languages (principally Chinese and Japanese). But I'm still interested, so maybe I'll give them a try.
And if there is any [articular event or engagement that holds the interest of anyone reading? Let me know! I don't pretend to be a subject matter expert here, so it's very likely that you'll lead me to something that will really grab me.
Thanks again.
Chief, I am not very good with words, especially when it comes to literary analysis, and I am worried if I write too much that my comments would be perceived as a bit too fawning or an exaggeration. But I just browsed through some of decisive battles and it is actually awe-inspiring how many you have done (and each one in what depth and quality). I ended up having more than a dozen tabs open of your battles that I want to revisit >_< (actually that's a good thing!)
As for future topics, let me try some thoughts. But be warned, I will just throw some spaghetti at the wall, see if any sticks for you. Hopefully you don't mind a floor full of spaghetti! So in no particular order:
a) Have you thought about some of the battles in what is now western Greece, post the 4th Crusade? (not even sure how to define it, is it the Frankokratia period?) Maybe none of them are decisive, but they offer a almost byzantine web of crusader/Latin/Genoese/Venetian mini states, Byzantine states, Catalan mercenaries passing by, Turks later on... a complete mess, but I guess accompanied by latin and byzantine damsels in distress, warrior princes and princesses, all sorts of shenanigans, betrayals, chivalry... should provide some juicy material to talk about and perhaps one that is not covered to death.
b) Staying in the same geographical area, but changing era, have you considered the Greco-Italian war? I remember your article with the Italians in Ethiopia was very good, and highlighting their shortcomings was very interesting. So besides the details of the campaign it would be a nice platform to explore the competency (or lack thereof) of the Italian military and political leadership. Could even be expanded with seeing how competently the allies and Germans responded later on. And there could be a whole discussion on whether this battle was decisive in its influence on Moscow later on.
c) Same period but a bit to the south: ditto as above for the North African campaign in WW2? I know it is well covered but the Italian competence angle is interesting and e.g. the first part with operation Compass could complement the Greco-Italian events?
d) Moving over to the Pacific area, I am a bit lost with all the tabs I have opened, but have you done the battle of Shanghai pass? I think sources were troublesome with China? But lots of decisive battles during any of the dynastic periods, perhaps the battle of the Red Cliffs? Or anything involving westerners (like the nice one you did in Second Shanghai), showing the changing technologies?
(continued in part 2)
(part 2 on possible ideas for historic battles)
e) Same area but modern era: you have done some amazing pieces on the Pacific campaign. I know these events are well covered elsewhere but any other one would be a treat! (for the land ones, I think you can feel and perhaps convey what soldiers born thousands of miles away having to march through incredibly humid conditions would have to say about the whole ordeal)
f) Same general area, same period: China theater in WWII. I think you have done something on the civil war, but anything from the period (or even the predating period, or even the fall of the Qing empire) would be good if you are happy with the sources. For decisive ones, perhaps the Hundred Regiments battle (if only for the myths and controversies it created)? Or is it operation Ichi-Go which is quite impressive in scope and results, at a time when Japan was not doing that well elsewhere? And in other battles, or bigger campaigns it is interesting to see how well the Chinese were (or at times were not, depends on how you look at it) doing with at the same time apparently limitless but limited resources.
Again not sure about the sources, but for entertainment value at least there are some good productions of movies coming out of China (and Taiwan) on the period worth watching (if only to see their point of view); there is one on the Red Cliffs too if I am not mistaken (maybe a bit too romanticised?); and a grim one on the Taiping rebellion.
Apologies for the long text, but hope some of this may give you some inspiration! If nothing sticks, sorry for all the pasta on the floor.
And apologies if I repeated something you have already covered. If at some point you have article with all the links (it is cumbersome/confusing to scroll through the different tags), it would definitely become my favorite bookmark!
Let me think about that for a bit. I promise I'll get back to you.
You don't even have to answer directly regarding these topics Chief!
I was just offering some food for thought. If you find any of this interesting I will be quite happy; if it actually opens up your appetite to the degree that we get some other installment in the "battles" series... well I will be most happy indeed!
Hi Chief!
I've been a big fan of your battles posts for a long time, ever since I stumbled upon them way back when but for some reason haven't bothered to comment (call it shyness I suppose).
I'll be sad to see you stop writing but such is life. Hope you find something do get your spark back (looking forward to blair mountain). I very much like how you break down the sources, forces engaged and actual events.
AS for the Brusilov offensive, there are some good second hand sources out there I think, prit Buttar recently write a trilogy on the eastern forn of WWI. Also there has been alot more written on the outbreak of the war in the east and the battles in Galicia. Fall of the Double Eagle and A Mad Catastrophe are two relativly recent books on it, though they both focus hevaily on the hapsburg side. Same battlefield, same armies and partially the same commanders as the Brusilov offensive.
Nestor: So, here's my thoughts.
Western Greece - sounds intriguing..more for the geopolitical/social aspects. I'm going to poke at it for a bit, largely to see what the sources look like. What I see as potential issues are 1) it seems very specialized, and the sort of thing that is unlikely to be extensively covered outside of academic history, which is often difficult to obtain for a general hobbyist and 2) I don't read the languages, and I suspect a LOT of the sources, especially the primary ones, will not have been translated. This does sound like fun to learn about, tho, so...
Italian Campaign of 1940 - One of these days I might do one of the Battles of the Isonzo just because the Italian generalship of 1916 was so gawdawful (but before then I'm going to do Sadowa/Koniggratz, which is all about awful generalship...) but I think I did as much as I want to do about this one back in 2014 when I did Crete. Just more of the usual "I never count in - or on - the Italians." stuff.
North Africa 1940-1941 - the one piece of this that I'm intrigued about is "Operation Compass", the defeat of the Italian 10th Army by the Western Desert Force and, in particular, Sidi Barrani. That would be a good one for February next year.
China - I did Shanghaiguan really early on, and that one should get a makeover, but the problem with China is the language - I can't read the sources so I'm utterly dependent on translations and secondary sources, which is problematic...
(con't)
Nestor (con't): - more battles thoughts...
Pacific War - not really sure what more I'd like to do there. Savo Island was fun, and Philippine Sea, and the Yamamoto shootdown (Operation Vengeance), and Bataan was interesting, if kinda grim. The land battles in general seem kind of an afterthought. The real bottom line is that Yamamoto was right; the IJN/IJA had no business going to war with the US. The economic/industrial/logistic imbalance was insuperable.
China again - The "Hundred Regiments" looks fascinating...but I'm reading van Slyke (1996) "The Battle of the Hundred Regiments: Problems of Coordination and Control during the Sino-Japanese War" and It's hard to wee how I could do better job. It's at JSTOR, if you have a subscription, tho, and well worth the read.
I'm slowly working my way towards Blair Mountain, tho. That'll be the next project, for sometime this fall. Hope you'll like it...
Johan: Thank you for the recommendations of Schindler (2015) and Wawro (2014); they both look interesting.
The Austrian Empire (1804-1867) and then the Austro-Hungarian one (1867-1918) are beginning to fascinate me because of the weird combination of huge size and ostensible power of the empires combined with their utter military incapacity.
The Austria of Maria Theresa that had fought so well in the Seven Years War just went to hell by the 19th Century and lost damn near every fight against the French (which was sorta okay - everyone else did, too...). The 19th Century was one Austrian defeat after another, and finally the disaster that was their rush (Wawro has it right; it WAS a "mad catastrophe") into WW1.
As I said; I'm working on Sadowz, and I think that'll do a good job discussing the unhappy Austrians when they weren't marrying...
Post a Comment