What Is Each Nation's Greatest Moment of Military Glory?

[hojutsuka]

From what I've read, the Austrians weren't interested in Germany as a nation. They just wanted political influence in the former Empire lands to protect their northern and western flanks.

Well, in 1866 Bismarck was more interested in Prussia than in a united German nation. He just wanted to consolidate Protestant Germany under Prussia; he actively did not want Catholic south Germany in the new Confederation led by Prussia.

 

Even if the Prussians lost in 1866, I don't think it would have led to a great German nationalistic movement under the Austrians.

I do not think this either (note that the Prussian victory did not immediately lead to a great German nationalistic movement under Prussia. The German nation came into being, but only after decades more of turmoil.).

 

What I do see is the loss of opportunity. Austrian victory might (or might not) have eventually (after decades, probably) led to a Germany that included Austrian Germans. But the Prussian victory made certain that any fruit of the German nationalistic movement would not include Austria.

 

Most of the time they considered German nationalism a threat and the rest of time a dangerous tool that could be used, but only if not allowed to get out of hand.

Bismarck being conservative probably agreed with them, but with the proportions reversed.

 

Hojutsuka

[swerve]

Well, in 1866 Bismarck was more interested in Prussia than in a united German nation. He just wanted to consolidate Protestant Germany under Prussia; he actively did not want Catholic south Germany in the new Confederation led by Prussia...

 

Hojutsuka

 

Not quite true. He wanted the Catholic south except Austria. Leave them out, & they'd naturally gravitate to Austria, giving it potentially more people, if it could control them, than his Prussian-dominated north. Without Austria, Germany would have a Protestant majority, few non-German-populated territories, & no state capable of opposing Prussia. And a clear majority of Germans (NB. Austrians were still thought of as Germans), and a larger total population than that under Austria.

[DemolitionMan]

Alright this is getting complicated. But I´ve seen the Battle of Gettysburg mentioned here already too. How would you declare that? Only part of the Union states history or of American history? Glory for which side? Or even for both? For the North it was hardly a glorious victory and for the South it was a bold gamble gone false. Yet it stands out in the history of the ACW and in American identity too.

[Colin Williams]

Not quite true. He wanted the Catholic south except Austria. Leave them out, & they'd naturally gravitate to Austria, giving it potentially more people, if it could control them, than his Prussian-dominated north. Without Austria, Germany would have a Protestant majority, few non-German-populated territories, & no state capable of opposing Prussia. And a clear majority of Germans (NB. Austrians were still thought of as Germans), and a larger total population than that under Austria.

 

Part of the difference between the actual Prussian-dominated Germany versus a potential Austrian-dominated German has to do with war aims, as Prussia was looking to remove Austria from its dominant position among the German states while to a certain degree Austria was simply trying to maintain or enhance the status quo by putting Prussia back in its place. The larger, and inherently unresolvable, issue lies with the split personality of the Austro-Hungarian state. If the Austrian Germans focused on taking charge in a German nation, they risked alienating the numerous non-German subjects and losing the partnership of the Hungarians. If they focused on working with the non-German Habsburg subjects and establishing a dominant position in the Balkans, they risked losing their membership in the German nation. Although a Prussian defeat in 1866 would have postponed the day of reckoning, I don't see how the Habsburgs could have ever succeeded on both fronts in an age of nationalism.

[Guest aevans]

Alright this is getting complicated. But I´ve seen the Battle of Gettysburg mentioned here already too. How would you declare that? Only part of the Union states history or of American history? Glory for which side? Or even for both? For the North it was hardly a glorious victory and for the South it was a bold gamble gone false. Yet it stands out in the history of the ACW and in American identity too.

 

Gettysburg is almost the perfect example of why searching for glory leads one off course. It was a moderately successful repulse of the raiding force in a moderately effective strategic raid in the middle of a long war. Yet both sides of the argument then and now blow it up into a ridiculous heroic myth of ultimate strategic decisiveness.

[Old Tanker]

Alright this is getting complicated. But I´ve seen the Battle of Gettysburg mentioned here already too. How would you declare that? Only part of the Union states history or of American history? Glory for which side? Or even for both? For the North it was hardly a glorious victory and for the South it was a bold gamble gone false. Yet it stands out in the history of the ACW and in American identity too.

 

 

 

Maybe we are trying to avoid a family spat.

[Colin Williams]

Glory is a rationalization for the results of war, not a legitimate reason for engaging in war. It's nothing but self-righteous spin. I consider it a absolutely positive development that we've begun a process of removing glory from the discussion. War should be a means, even for the soldiers. Glory makes it an end, sufficient in itself. Nobody needs that.

 

Good point, although war as a glorious endeavor certainly has deep roots in society, extending back to the days when the manner in which chieftains and their warbands fought was in some ways more important than the result. Of course even in those days there were dissenting voices. Tolkien, in a short essay on the Anglo-Saxon poem, The Battle of Maldon, notes the apparent disapproval of the poet for the English lord's "overmastering pride" (ofermod) in allowing the Northmen to cross the causeway and take part in a "fair" fight. Tolkien believed the author of Beowulf leveled a similar criticism against Beowulf's eagerness for glory (lofgeornost). Some of this thinking underlies my reason for tentatively including Verdun on the list of French "glorious" moments. Many would argue, with good reason, that WW1 placed soldiers in situations of unprecedented horror and danger. Certainly the level of killing, the use of new and horrible means of killing like poison gas, and the extended nature of the traumatic experience for most soldiers, were extreme in the history of warfare. However, not all of the conflicts of the past, perhaps not even most, were settled in a gentlemanly manner during a day spent of the field of battle. The Age of Enlightenment may have provided a brief respite, but there was torture and terror aplenty in the Thirty Years War and many other wars of the "modern" age. If there is anything glorious in war perhaps it is only found, as Tolkien the veteran of the Somme believed, in the heroism of the retainers who fight to the end despite their lord's misguided ideas of chivalry.

 

Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, / mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

[Kensuke]

Alright this is getting complicated. But I´ve seen the Battle of Gettysburg mentioned here already too. How would you declare that? Only part of the Union states history or of American history? Glory for which side? Or even for both? For the North it was hardly a glorious victory and for the South it was a bold gamble gone false. Yet it stands out in the history of the ACW and in American identity too.

 

Gettysburg destroyed the myth of Lee's infallibility. That was an important point back then.

 

- John

[DB]

Re the Glory bit.

 

This is why BillB's examples trump everything else, for the British. The end of those wars, not the fighting of them.

 

My opinion is that the main reason for claiming that war is glorious it to persuade otherwise rational people that doing their bit of necessary evil doesn't turn them into monsters, but heroes.

 

David

[pikachu]

Asians have a more pragmatic definition of glory. The upcoming Red Cliff movie (2008), hyped as China's most expensive and epic movie ever, will celebrate the biggest battle in the Three Kingdoms era. The victors won by sending a double agent to persuade the other side to chain their ships together, then sending fire ships to torch the whole immobilized lot. The strategist who came up with this idea is now a semi-divine figure in Chinese mythology.

 

A bit south in Java, people remember that the Mongols' most humiliating defeat was not the kamikaze (that was just bad luck) but the night when a Javanese prince, after having tricked the Mongols into destroying a rival kingdom, drugged the entire Mongol army silly with tampered wine and massacred them in their sleep.

[baboon6]

South Africa

 

World War I: Delville Wood

World War II: East Africa- Dessie, Combolcia and Amba Alagi

North Africa- Sidi Rezegh

Italy- liberation of Florence, Monte Stanco

Angola: Cuito Cuanavale

[Cromwell]

Glory is slippery stuff. Flags flying and bagpipes wailing is one thing, but if glory is the courage and determination in the face of certain destruction, if glory is surviving one's own inadequacies, if glory is some paradigm of national character, then for Britain, I would argue, it was the Retreat to, the Evacuation from, the Contest in the air over, DUNKIRK and the Channel ports that awful May and June in 1940.

[swerve]

Part of the difference between the actual Prussian-dominated Germany versus a potential Austrian-dominated German has to do with war aims, as Prussia was looking to remove Austria from its dominant position among the German states while to a certain degree Austria was simply trying to maintain or enhance the status quo by putting Prussia back in its place. The larger, and inherently unresolvable, issue lies with the split personality of the Austro-Hungarian state. If the Austrian Germans focused on taking charge in a German nation, they risked alienating the numerous non-German subjects and losing the partnership of the Hungarians. If they focused on working with the non-German Habsburg subjects and establishing a dominant position in the Balkans, they risked losing their membership in the German nation. Although a Prussian defeat in 1866 would have postponed the day of reckoning, I don't see how the Habsburgs could have ever succeeded on both fronts in an age of nationalism.

 

Both good points, Colin, though note that the partnership with the Hungarians was only finally agreed (on terms which were detrimental to the long-term stability of the Empire, IMO), after the defeat by Prussia. Austrian diplomacy, both external & internal, was already failing to resolve its combination of multi-ethnicity & Germanness. The Ausgleich bought the co-operation of the Hungarians, at the expense of storing up trouble with the other nationalities.

[Ariete!]

Some say there is no glory in war.

 

“Glory” is the English spelling of “gloria” which means, in Latin, “that which receives great praise or honor” (and, by extension, ‘deserving’ of great praise and honor).

 

When a group of people have triumphed against a dangerous enemy or, having bee defeated, still denied the enemy, they will be praised by (and will deserve the praise of) their community. This is military glory.

 

It was glorious of the badly off-guard, demoralized Italian Army to pull itself together along the banks of the Piave and repulse the German-Austrian breakthrough after Caporetto. They will be remembered and praised for their sacrifice, for their newfound steadfastness, for their suffering as long as there is one Italian who has not swallowed the moral-relativism bullsh!t people get taught nowdays.

 

 

 

The Piave Whispered

 

2nd verse

. But in a sad night

. word came of a dire event

. The Piave heard the anger and the shock

. So many people it saw

. Fall back, abandon their homes

. Due to the shame transpired at Caporetto!

 

3rd verse

[…]

. “No!” sang the Piave, “No! said the infantry”

. “not one more step to the enemy”

 

. The Piave’s banks swelled up

. and like the infantry the waves fought back

. red with the proud enemy’s blood

. The Piave commanded

. “fall back, foreigner!”

Edited November 20, 2007 by Ariete!

[Ariete!]

"…The remnants of what once was one of the world’s mightiest armies are retracing their steps, defeated and hopeless, up the valleys from which they had descended with proud assuredness. "

 

Nov 4, 1918

A. Diaz

[Guest aevans]

W.T. Sherman got is best:

 

"I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."

 

"There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell."

 

(Emphasis is mine.)

[Colin Williams]

W.T. Sherman got is best:

 

"I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."

 

"There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell."

 

(Emphasis is mine.)

 

Wise words. I'll just have to insert the obligatory Eastes-inspired quote.

 

"All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field, the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever." - 1Peter:1:24-25

[Guest aevans]

Wise words. I'll just have to insert the obligatory Eastes-inspired quote.

 

"All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field, the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever." - 1Peter:1:24-25

 

Sic transit gloria mundi, baby.

[Old Tanker]

Confusing topic . The heading states nations Glory.

 

The last sentence asks you to name a battle that best shows the national character.

 

As I review the answers posted I see replies to one or the other.

 

Tony is emphasizing Glory as pure BS or a legend created after a battle by some historians or such. As did Billy B in a victory march.

 

The Glory of the American military can be the GAR passing in review in D.C. right after the end of the ACW. Or the 82AB marching up Broadway in NYC after WWII.

 

While I chose Midway as a battle the best demonstrates the American character in action.

 

Two different subjects.

[Guest aevans]

The Glory of the American military can be the GAR passing in review in D.C. right after the end of the ACW. Or the 82AB marching up Broadway in NYC after WWII.

 

More of an honor than a glorification. Glory hounds aren't looking for a parade, they're looking for a medal and place in a history book and service tradition.

 

Having said that, honor can be carried too far as well.

 

While I chose Midway as a battle the best demonstrates the American character in action.

It is often advertised as such these days, but I think I'd choose the major campaigns of US Grant's career -- Shiloh, Vicksburg, the Overland Campaign, and the siege of Petersburg -- because they consistently demonstrate a will to prevail, even in the face of repeated setbacks. Midway is merely a punctuation mark in the middle of such a period in our history (first two years of the Pacific War).

 

Two different subjects.

 

Agreed.

Edited November 20, 2007 by aevans

[BillB]

W.T. Sherman got is best:

 

"I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."

 

"There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell."

 

(Emphasis is mine.)

So that is two opinions (yours and Sherman's) to set against the bulk of recorded military history then, yes?

 

BillB

[Rich]

So that is two opinions (yours and Sherman's) to set against the bulk of recorded military history then, yes?

 

BillB

 

I think that Ariete may have gotten it right. Glory ("gloria") is the receiving or giving of "great praise and/or honor". Sherman - and aevans - quite correctly note that warfare itself deserves no great praise or honor. Thus Sherman's "There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory...." It is fundamentally a linguistic error, there is never any glory in war, but there is often glory in the poor sods that have to participate in one. They deserve the great praise and honor, the war doesn't.

[BillB]

I think that Ariete may have gotten it right. Glory ("gloria") is the receiving or giving of "great praise and/or honor". Sherman - and aevans - quite correctly note that warfare itself deserves no great praise or honor. Thus Sherman's "There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory...." It is fundamentally a linguistic error, there is never any glory in war, but there is often glory in the poor sods that have to participate in one. They deserve the great praise and honor, the war doesn't.

No argument with any of that Rich, especially the last bit which is my take on it FWIW, except maybe when the war is a necessary one. However, as the intellectual bully that you are, you will have noted that there is no mention of war or warfare in the question, only "military glory". As these are not the same thing, the opinions of Sherman and aevans are therefore not germane to actually answering the question.

 

BillB

[Guest aevans]

So that is two opinions (yours and Sherman's) to set against the bulk of recorded military history then, yes?

 

BillB

 

The "bulk of recorded military history", from Sphacteria to an An Nasiriyah, is a pretty stark indictment of martial glory. I think I'll take General Sherman's opinion of its value over yours any day of the week, month, or year.

Edited November 20, 2007 by aevans

[Guest aevans]

However, as the intellectual bully that you are, you will have noted that there is no mention of war or warfare in the question, only "military glory". As these are not the same thing, the opinions of Sherman and aevans are therefore not germane to actually answering the question.

 

Military glory doesn't come without war, B. So you get a 0/10 on root cause analysis. You also seem to be missing the fact that glory is the stuff of service traditions and breathless, deathless (the author hopes) martial pornography, both of which are stuff for retired generals and ignorant recruits (and even more ignorant teenagers' imaginations), but not the proper business of professionals or serious students of history.