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

[hojutsuka]

Yep, kind of like Sebastopol was done in both 1853 and 1942, etc. [Verdun, others also come to mind]. Modern sieges are not done that way, and the R-J War was quite modern, with few parallels to the 18th C. Your facile construct re: Vauban remains hot air.

Excuse me? You appear to be saying that Verdun 1916 and Sevastopol 1942 were both done the way I described the Siege of Port Arthur, yet in the next sentence you say "Modern sieges are not done that way. and the R-J War was quite modern, with few parallels to the 18th C.". As far as I know, Verdun and Sevastopol 1942 were both more recent than the Siege of Port Arthur (1904, the actual surrender was January 2, 1905).

 

The Siege of Sevastopol in the Crimean War (1854, not 1853), was a regular siege, or would have been if it had not been for the incompetence of the commanders on the Allied side. Vauban could certainly have done better, IMHO.

 

I am not sure what you mean by a "modern siege", and I do not believe Verdun should be classed as a siege in any case (attack of fortified positions definitely, but the fortified positions were part of a line that covered all of France between Switzerland and the Channel). Could you please explain what your definition of "modern siege" is, and how the Siege of Port Arthur fits your definition rather than that of a regular siege that I gave earlier.

 

You feel wrong as to automatic anything on my part.

I find it hard to understand this sentence due to its grammar (or lack thereof). Therefore I apologize in advance if I have misunderstood you.

 

As far as I can tell, you seem to feel that I automatically declare anything you post to be wrong.

 

This is absolutely not the case. I consider you to be a knowledgeable and valuable poster (unlike say the late unlamented pfcem or our current frontrunner for his replacement, JWB).

 

But I do not always agree 100% with your posts, and will post to say so. If I agree with you, I am unlikely to post because I feel a "me too" post is mostly a waste of time. You are a prolific poster, Ken, and if I really were opposed to everything you posted, you would be seeing a lot more comments from me.

 

I do suspect. The Tsushima mark is obvious; but I bet every Japanese school child prior to 1946 learned the significance of the taking of 203m Hill. That was not done a la Vauban....

Please, Ken, read an actual account of the Siege of Port Arthur! You apparently assume that since "the R-J War was quite modern, with few parallels to the 18th C" you can dismiss any relevance of Vauban to the Siege of Port Arthur without knowing anything about the details of the actual fighting. Your facile dismissal does you no credit.

 

Consider the capture of 203-Meter Hill, and how it corresponds to Vauban's treatise (bearing in mind that weapons had advanced in the two centuries since Vauban wrote).

 

Upon arriving at Port Arthur, the Japanese 3rd Army under General Nogi established lines to cut off Port Arthur by land (Port Arthur was blockaded on the seaward side by the Japanese Navy). This is of course the first step in Vauban's "scientific method".

 

The attack on 203-meter Hill began with the Japanese establishing a battery of 11inch howitzers one mile from the hill (clearly a "siege battery" of heaviest pieces assigned to batter the enemy fortifications at the closest possible range, as advocated by Vauban. One mile is not a usual range for 11inch howitzers.). On November 28th and 30th, the Japanese tried infantry assaults. This was too early, by Vauban's methods, as the approach trenches had not yet reached the Russian works. Only the perceived need for a speedy victory for the Japanese explains, but IMHO does not excuse, the over-hasty assaults which duly failed with large Japanese casualties, many inflicted by Russian flanking fire from supporting positions as the Japanese had no protection over the last part of the approach.

 

The Japanese continued their bombardment and dug their approaches and parallels closer. Because the Russians had not had the time and money to fully fortify Port Arthur before the siege began, 203-meter Hill did not have permanent fortifications built of concrete. The heavy Japanese bombardment therefore wrecked the Russian trenches and field works, inflicting casualties and driving the Russian defenders from the works in some places. On December 4th, The Japanese saps reached the wrecked Russian works, and on December 5th, Japanese assault parties emerging from the approach trenches overwhelmed the Russian defenders of 203-meter Hill.

 

This is classic Vauban except that the last few steps are missing. In Vauban, once the attackers reach and take the glacis, they pause to develop a solid position in the glacis from which to batter down the escarp (the vertical wall on the defender's side of the ditch). The escarp must be broken down to allow the assaulting infantry to get into the fortification itself. The breaches in the escarp can be made by establishing a battery in the glacis, or by continuing the sap underground and mining (laying a large explosive charge under the fortification to blow it up just before the assault).

 

On 203-meter Hill, the lack of permanent, concrete or masonry, fortifications meant that the Japanese did not have to go through this last phase because there was no concrete or masonry escarp to break down. But otherwise, the Japanese success at 203-meter Hill was achieved by following Vauban's system, and in the fighting on the eastern part of the Port Arthur perimeter where the Russians had permanent, concrete fortifications you can see the full Vauban method, with the Japanese establishing themselves in the glacis, then mining under the ditch to blow up Russian fortifications and bring down the escarp for the final assault.

 

In summary, the Japanese successes at Port Arthur followed the sequence of actions outlined by Vauban. When the Japanese tried to shortcut the process by large scale infantry assaults before the preceding actions advocated by Vauban had been successfully completed, the Japanese failed with massive casualties.

 

The fact that you did not think of the Battle of Tsushima when you said "I suspect that every Japanese schoolboy learned more about Port Arthur than any other aspect of the war in later years." should tell you that you need to read some more about the Russo-Japanese War and the Siege of Port Arthur if you want to continue the discussion.

 

Hojutsuka

[Argus]

Non european countries/peoples? The three that come to my mind,

 

Japan

1)Tsushima.

A first naval victory by an eastern power after many centuries.

2)Pearl harbour

3)Singapore

Victory despite inferior numbers.Myth of British invincibility in Asia dented

 

Turkey/Turks

1)Manzikert

Doors of Asia Minor flung open.A nomadic steppe people settle down and found an empire

2)Seige and conquest of Constantinopole

 

3)Battle of Sakarya

Invading Greek army stopped.Foundation of modern Turkey laid.

 

Arabs

1)Badr

Existential battle.

2)Yarmuk

Romans leave Syria permanently

3)Qadissiya

Persia conquered and its culture altered forever

4)Talas

Defeat of the Chinese, Central Asia adopts arab rather than chinese cultural norms.

 

5)1967 war.

A wake up call.Showed up the tremendous deficiencies in arab militaries and societies

 

I think you can add Gallipoli to the list for the Turks, winning there (Attaturk etc) was just as big for them as losing (really just being there) was for Aust/NZ.* It's an odd campaign on that score alone.

 

shane

 

* This is NOT to ignore the (in order of numbers) Brits, French, Indians, or the Malts, Russians, Jews, Chinese, Egyptians etc.

[Aussie Digger]

For Russia Stalingrad and the Battle of Zborov.

For Germany the Battle of Crete, or Verdun.

Edited November 24, 2007 by Aussie Digger

[Tomas Hoting]

For Russia Stalingrad and the Battle of Zborov.

For Germany the Battle of Crete, or Verdun.

 

Verdun???

 

AKA the "Blutmühle" or "blood mill". Where's the glory in sending hundreds of thousands of young soldiers to a slaughterhouse? And it didn't have the desired outcome of what the German military high command expected from it.

[swerve]

I think you can add Gallipoli to the list for the Turks, winning there (Attaturk etc) was just as big for them as losing (really just being there) was for Aust/NZ.* It's an odd campaign on that score alone.

 

shane

 

* This is NOT to ignore the (in order of numbers) Brits, French, Indians, or the Malts, Russians, Jews, Chinese, Egyptians etc.

 

Good point. For the Turkish empire it was a battle to stay in the war. Losing the battle meant loss of the capital (largest, richest) city, & complete isolation from their allies. The victorious Allied fleet would then have been free to repeat the trick on their second largest, second richest city, Izmir, on the Aegean coast. Game over.

[SALADIN]

I considered it, but rejected it as a moment of military glory because by all accounts, the result was more or less a foregone conclusion, due to the overwhelming strength of the Sultans army.

 

I have read only bits and pieces about the battle but i understand that the Morrocan Sultan was ready prior to the battle to cede certain coastal areas to the Portugese in return for them withdrawing. Sebastian ,the Portugese King refused as he felt he was in some sort of religous crusade.Why offer to cede territory if victory was certain?

 

What were the numbers involved ?.

Wiki talks about 25000 plus portugese and allies against 60000 thousand morrocans.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alcazarquivir

 

Overwhelming at first sight but i recall that in many places around their empire ,the portugese with even stronger odds against them overcame native resistance with better armaments and tactics.The example i can remember offhand happened in my neck of the woods in Malacca in which a portugese force of about 2000 decimated a native malay army of 20000 IIRC.

 

Were the armaments used by both sides in Alacazarquivir roughly equivalent?.

Then differences in numbers mean something.

 

Is there any place where a good account of the battle is written?.

[Redbeard]

Prostitutes don't have a concept of duty, accountability (except maybe to their own economic needs), or responsibility (except maybe to giving good service in exchange for a better business reputation).

 

Doesn't that description fit to most business forms, which judging from the wealth and success of market economy indeed does deserve a lot of glory? Their product has just been extremely tabooed by priests, frigid women and others who fear loss of control over minds and bodies.

 

Doing one's duty shoud be all the satisfaction of the moment anyone needs, and all the advertisement in history. If it isn't, you're an impostor in the uniform you wear, whether it is USMC dress blues or just an armband or other field sign in the color of your cause.

 

With your "duty only" attitude you are already well into the glory hand-out, it is just of a very aeschetic and almost masochistic character. BTW I think "duty only" can be just a fraction away from if not identical with "I only followed orders" heard from German war criminals.

 

In the end I find it more important what you fight for than how you do it, although they can't be entirely separated. A certain cause will exclude certain ways to fight, but I prefer somebody occasionally crossing the border to improper methods but for a good cause than those who in "bets possible taste" fight for the bad guys.

 

Anyway the "glory" question need not be that complicated. If somebody has done his/hers job well they need recognition for that - also in public. Of course a job involving killing fellow humans can be quite tricky to perform or to praise, but if the job is needed you better find a way to praise it or it won't be done in the end.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[swerve]

I have read only bits and pieces about the battle but i understand that the Morrocan Sultan was ready prior to the battle to cede certain coastal areas to the Portugese in return for them withdrawing. Sebastian ,the Portugese King refused as he felt he was in some sort of religous crusade.Why offer to cede territory if victory was certain?

 

What were the numbers involved ?.

Wiki talks about 25000 plus portugese and allies against 60000 thousand morrocans.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alcazarquivir

 

Overwhelming at first sight but i recall that in many places around their empire ,the portugese with even stronger odds against them overcame native resistance with better armaments and tactics.The example i can remember offhand happened in my neck of the woods in Malacca in which a portugese force of about 2000 decimated a native malay army of 20000 IIRC.

 

Were the armaments used by both sides in Alacazarquivir roughly equivalent?.

Then differences in numbers mean something.

 

Is there any place where a good account of the battle is written?.

 

I'm not an expert on the battle, & wouldn't want to estimate the numbers, but I do note that all descriptions of it agree that the Sultans army was much larger. The opposing army was mixed, part Portuguese & part Moroccan. This was Portuguese intervention on one side in an ongoing Moroccan civil war, not an outright invasion. This should also be taken into account when considering the Sultans reaction to Portuguese intervention: he didn't know when he made that offer how big an army he'd have to fight. In the event, he was better at raising troops & getting them to the battlefield, which gave him a great advantage in the battle.

 

European & Moroccan troops wouldn't have been identically armed, but there was rough equivalence in terms of quality of weapons (armour, swords, guns). Superiority of one side or another depended on training, discipline & tactics. Remember that at this period the Turkish Empire - and in the Western Mediterranean Ottoman forces included a lot of Arab or Berber troops - was at least holding its own against European opposition, despite intermittent setbacks such as Lepanto (didn't sweep the Turks from the sea, just stopped complete Turkish domination of the Med) & Tunis (recaptured fairly soon).

Edited November 25, 2007 by swerve

[Argus]

Good point. For the Turkish empire it was a battle to stay in the war. Losing the battle meant loss of the capital (largest, richest) city, & complete isolation from their allies. The victorious Allied fleet would then have been free to repeat the trick on their second largest, second richest city, Izmir, on the Aegean coast. Game over.

 

Not claiming to be an expert, but I gather its enduring importance is for far more than just the strategic outcomes. I mean it was a direct invasion of Turkish (homeland) soil and direct threat to the national core (Constantinople), in pursuit of an objective (transiting the Bosphourous) that the Turks were utterly sick of countries bossing them about over for centuries.

 

I'd imagine it would be something like the UK repelling a hard fought invasion of Essex after having been on the butt end of EU-Japanese-American dictat over the channel for 100 years.

 

shane

[swerve]

Not claiming to be an expert, but I gather its enduring importance is for far more than just the strategic outcomes. I mean it was a direct invasion of Turkish (homeland) soil and direct threat to the national core (Constantinople), in pursuit of an objective (transiting the Bosphourous) that the Turks were utterly sick of countries bossing them about over for centuries.

 

I'd imagine it would be something like the UK repelling a hard fought invasion of Essex after having been on the butt end of EU-Japanese-American dictat over the channel for 100 years.

 

shane

 

True. The psychological impact of the victory was immense in the short term, & even after the eventual loss of the war, it was used as a rallying point in the subsequent struggle to retain independence, & is still of major emotional significance, even more so than the Sakarya battles which stopped the Greek attempt to conquer Turkey post WW1, or Dumlupınar when the Greek army trying to hold on to Western Anatolia was routed.

Edited November 25, 2007 by swerve

[Guest aevans]

Doesn't that description fit to most business forms, which judging from the wealth and success of market economy indeed does deserve a lot of glory? Their product has just been extremely tabooed by priests, frigid women and others who fear loss of control over minds and bodies.

 

I see -- the majority of women who are involved in prostitution sell their bodies because it's the only thing they have left to sell (spreading diseases both clinial and cultural, no matter how well regulated) but to you they're answering the call of economic duty. Ri-i-ight.

 

With your "duty only" attitude you are already well into the glory hand-out, it is just of a very aeschetic and almost masochistic character.

It takes exactly zero glorification to recognize that someone did his duty. In fact, the vast majority of people who have done their military duty in a way that positively contributed to their cause have gone totally unrecognized, yet their cause could not have succeeded without them. Glorification involves making a value judgment about whose duty is more important. I'll have none of that, for the simple reason that I know, even if the glorifiers don't, that every contribution counts, not just the ones that take place when and where somebody is motivated to write about them in hyperbolic fashion.

 

BTW I think "duty only" can be just a fraction away from if not identical with "I only followed orders" heard from German war criminals.

 

In the end I find it more important what you fight for than how you do it, although they can't be entirely separated. A certain cause will exclude certain ways to fight, but I prefer somebody occasionally crossing the border to improper methods but for a good cause than those who in "bets possible taste" fight for the bad guys.

 

Whoever said that one's duty consists only of what some authority figure tells one to do? Heck, the whole legal theory behind rejecting the "following orders" defense relies on the perception in many minds that each individual has a higher duty to mankind than he does to his institution or even nation.

 

Anyway the "glory" question need not be that complicated. If somebody has done his/hers job well they need recognition for that - also in public. Of course a job involving killing fellow humans can be quite tricky to perform or to praise, but if the job is needed you better find a way to praise it or it won't be done in the end.

 

Praising respectfully is one thing, glorification is entirely another.

[Assessor]

I don’t want to fan an argument, but as I understand this line of reasoning, my military service, when I repaired broken APCs and the like, is not different to, is neither more nor less “glorious” than that of the guys in the (at that time) RAOC (now RLC) who took their lives in their hands defusing bombs?

 

I’m not going to argue that both aren’t important, but I certainly would NOT equate what they did (and do) with what I did.

[Guest aevans]

I don’t want to fan an argument, but as I understand this line of reasoning, my military service, when I repaired broken APCs and the like, is not different to, is neither more nor less “glorious” than that of the guys in the (at that time) RAOC (now RLC) who took their lives in their hands defusing bombs?

 

I’m not going to argue that both aren’t important, but I certainly would NOT equate what they did (and do) with what I did.

 

Your duty is your duty. Without repaired APCs, what are the shooters going to ride? It's whether one does his duty that's important, not what his specific duty is. When we forget that, we forget what duty means.

[Sardaukar]

Here in Malta the greatest moment was definitely the Great Siege 1565.

 

It's fascinating battle/siege, well worth reading about, check:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Malta_(1565)

 

The number of casualties is in as much dispute as the number of invaders. Balbi gives 35,000 Turkish deaths, which seems implausible, Bosio 30,000. Several other sources give about 25,000.[18]

 

Malta had lost a third of the knights and a third of its inhabitants. Birgu and Senglea were essentially leveled. But such was the gratitude of Europe for the knights' heroic defense that money soon began pouring into the island, allowing de Valette to construct a fortified city, La Valetta, on Mt. Sciberras, which was designed so as never to allow the Turks to occupy the position again.

 

The Siege of Malta did little, if anything, to alter the balance of power in the Mediterranean, but it was the first true defeat of the Ottoman Empire in a century and lifted European morale immeasurably.

 

http://www.greatsiege.com.mt/

 

http://www.pynchon.pomona.edu/v/siege.html

Edited November 28, 2007 by Sardaukar

[Redbeard]

I see -- the majority of women who are involved in prostitution sell their bodies because it's the only thing they have left to sell (spreading diseases both clinial and cultural, no matter how well regulated) but to you they're answering the call of economic duty. Ri-i-ight.

 

From what I know prostiutes do what they do for a variety of reasons, like most other business, but our culture tabooing them put them under extreme strain. When trying to ignore the cultural bias, I really can't see the big difference to dentists or shrinks. But imagine dental care being subjected to the same cultural taboo!

 

It takes exactly zero glorification to recognize that someone did his duty. In fact, the vast majority of people who have done their military duty in a way that positively contributed to their cause have gone totally unrecognized, yet their cause could not have succeeded without them. Glorification involves making a value judgment about whose duty is more important. I'll have none of that, for the simple reason that I know, even if the glorifiers don't, that every contribution counts, not just the ones that take place when and where somebody is motivated to write about them in hyperbolic fashion.

 

Hmmm....wonder what definition of "glory" and "glorification". Ariete earlier posted one with a etymological legitemacy and certainly one which covers my take on the word: “that which receives great praise or honor”. But as I understand you, nothing should recieve special praise or honour, they just did their duty. I simply can't see any sense in that, why should people have different wages BTW - they all just do their duty? I have also often heard phrases from "behind front" men like "we are are as indispensable as the frontline guy" and in that I agree - "without food and drink - the hero shrink" like a saying says over there at least. But still some jobs simply need a greater quantity of praise and honour, like if you regulary risk your life and not just your cofee brake to do your duty, or if your duty involves doing things so stressing, like killing other humans, that you seriously risk your mental health. Anyway I think the "praise and honour" part is a very effective defence against mental troubles in this context.

 

But I'm quite surprised that I, as a Scandinavian, find myself advocating against egalitarianism - with an American! At Tanknet - never say never

 

Whoever said that one's duty consists only of what some authority figure tells one to do? Heck, the whole legal theory behind rejecting the "following orders" defense relies on the perception in many minds that each individual has a higher duty to mankind than he does to his institution or even nation.

Praising respectfully is one thing, glorification is entirely another.

 

No matter what the Germans at Nuremberg said, German culture and doctrine demanded a very high degree of personal inititiative. But I guess they spotted an opportunity to hide behind "following orders" and that de-gloryfication" was a significant part of the instrument they hoped to work. In that context I of course ring an alarm bell when you speak for de-gloryfication. I don't accuse you of being a nazi-criminal, I have no reason to, but I think your "de-gloryfication" proposal risk working opposite to what I believe you intend. If you have accepted the praise and honour for some action, it will also be much more difficult to refuse the full responsibility of the consequences.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[toysoldier]

I´ve narrowed it to one deed wich i think defines the cuban wars of independence in many ways: the so called "Rescue of Sanguily". It was a guerrilla action, non decisive, swift, hit and run, made to rescue a camarade in arms, with no cuban losses... the best of mambi action. The description that follows has a lot of crap imbedded, but you´ll get the drift:

http://www.cadenagramonte.cubaweb.cu/engli...en_sanguily.asp

 

On October 7th , 1871, after exhausting days of march through the territory of Camagüey, the Mambi army led by Ignacio Agramonte set camp in the grazing lands of Consuegra, south of Puerto Príncipe.

 

 

Only 70 horsemen formed that troop that–just over the last month—had beaten several times the Spanish columns, to whom the Cubans in the forest were bold adversaries due to their intrepidness, organization and discipline.

 

Those soldiers for the independence seldom took a break. The unfortunate news that Brigadier Julio Sanguily had fallen in the hands of the enemy, put the Mambi forces under strain, so one of the most significant actions of that war would be taken: the Rescue of Sanguily

 

With his usual calmness, Agramonte picked up 35 men, those who had better horses, and went the after the Spaniards who outnumbered four times his cavalry.

 

 

Henry Reeve, the North American mambi soldier known as “El Inglesito”, was in the scouting party. After identifying the enemy and informing his superior officer, Henry Reeve also took part in that crushing and unexpected charge, that made possible the rescue of Gen. Sanguily. The surprise was a decisive factor and the Spanish army lost 11 of his men.

 

The happiness for the result of the action was total, so did the demonstration of courage and spirit of that troop. That day, El Mayor (Major Gen. Ignacio Agramonte) ratified his conviction that men like those would conquer, sooner or later, the yearned independence of Cuba.

 

 

The action occurred on October 8th, 1871 in which a small group of men –conducted by Ignacio Agramonte-- put their lives at stake to save that of a fellow countryman seized by the enemy, our National Hero José Martí called this action as “a feat that raised them to the path of glory.”

 

 

Several decades later, when more than one hundred years of struggle the Cuban people conquered its genuine independence, Commander in Chief Fidel Castro -evoking that epic action led by El Mayor – he called it an unbeatable feat.

[Sailor Lars]

For Finland, as an addition for the prementioned ones - Lemminkäinen and his journeys. Granted, perhaps not national yet, but something of an epic scale that still affects our lives - and will continue to do so.

[Rocky Davis]

And I would give equal respect to any person in military service who died or was seriously injured in the line of duty, whether in war or peace. They didn't choose the conditions of their duty, just promised to do that duty, and subsequently lived up to that promise. That's more important than whether they got shot by an enemy or died in a training accident. To suggest otherwise is the real insult.

 

To make this more concrete, what do you say to the sergeant and lance corporal I knew who died in a helicopter accident after having survived Desert Storm? Do you choose to say that thir death's are any less than those who died in roughly the same part of Kuwait they were asked to fight in, simply because they had the bad grace to survive several firefights, but not a helicopter flight? They were in the line of duty in both instances, you know.

 

The military contract is an unlimited liability agreement, legally requiring the maiming and even death of the contractee up until the last moment of the contract.

 

I agree.

 

During most of my service, there were no wars to fight - there was just the constant threat of war. And, as good soldiers, we practiced for the day that war might become real. And, during that "practice" people were hurt, permanently maimed or killed - including a number of people with whom I had served over the years.

 

I also know that, up until the past few years, actually being sent to a war zone was somewhat arbitrary. During Desert Storm, lots of units (and those that manned those units) were itching to get to the fight only to be told by DoD "Your mission is here - in Germany (Korea, CONUS or where ever)." Being told to stay in place and do your duty there by Higher did not relegate those units or the unit members to "Pussy Status" forevermore for not getting to the fight, while others did. And, training deaths and injuries sustained while those units continued to do their duty preparing for combat are every bit as important as injuries and deaths sustained on the battlefield.

 

Also, even amongst those IN the battlefield (in a non-linear battlefield such as Afghanistan or Iraq is these days), the mechanic is somewhat likely to have to take up his rifle and defend the Motor Pool from outside aggression and that same mechannic is not immune from random mortar or sniper attacks, either. And, that mechanic can and will be held responsible for the high performance of his job because any letdown in his performance can result in a catastrophic situation involving combat arms troops that are depending on using a fully functioning vehicle to get them into and out of a firefight.

 

Ask any helicopter crew how valuable the ground crews are to him. Ask any tanker how valuable the Maintenance/Recovery Sections are to him. They’ll tell you.

 

Anyway, that’s just my 2-cents-worth in this argument.