Algeria was more then a colony, there were French Départements in Algeria, from 1848 on until 1962 it was an integral part of the French motherland.

See Wikipedia or the french wikipedia article for the French départements in Algeria This does not mean, that Algerians were full citizens.

See also Process of Colonization :

Algeria was formally declared to be a part of France and was again divided into three departments, the government of which was placed into the hands of European settlers.

The tension between the French and the Arabs started to grow.

The French neglected the Arabs and in July of 1864, Senatus Consulte declared all Moslems to be French subjects, meaning the Muslims were not to be citizens.

This way, the Arabs could keep their Muslim religion and the Koran law, and were subject to special police regulations, including the infamous code de l’indigenat.

In order for Arabs to become full-blooded French citizens, they had to give up their personal status, which not many were willing to do.

The other answers pointed out very correctly that Algiers was legally considered a part of France.

What must be added is that there was a very large body of French colonists in Algiers, which was not the case with the other French possessions, whatever their legal status.

Julian Jackson's account of France in the 1930s and 1940s France: The Dark Years shows how France's African empire was seen as compensation for the decline in French prestige and influence in Europe during this period.

Algeria was the most important element in this project because of proximity to France, long historical association, and larger settler population than elsewhere.

Writing in 1938 Le Matin declared the keys to French security were the Vosges, Alps, Pyrenees and Atlas Mountains (my emphasis).

Le Matin also stated at this time:

France has two capitals: Paris and Algiers

It's hard to imagine an equivalent statement of imperial projection coming out of London or other European capitals.

Algeria was considered a "back door" to France, from the south.

In the hands of a hostile country, England, Germany, or even Libya/Egypt, it was seen as a potential invasion route to France.

On the other hand, if France retained a foothold in Africa through Algeria, it could continue to influence its former colonies in "French West Africa" (which it does to a small degree, to this day).

France looked at Algeria

that way an American might see Latin America through the Monroe Doctrine: a "no fly" zone for hostile foreign countries.

Algeria is the part of Africa that is closest to France.

There were multiple reasons why Algeria was so important to French: Algeria was French military colony since 1834.

and, by the constitution of 1848 to be an integral part of French territory and divided into three French departments (Algiers, Oran and Constantine).

Also, as Tom said, Algeria was backdoor of France and it was very possible route to invade France.

French capitulation in WW2 was already great hit to French honor, but when France lost in First Indochina war France was totally defiled.

France could not allow to lose in another war because that could cause big political and military crisis in France.

In Algeria, there were more French population (about 800,000)

then in other overseas territories and colonies and their destiny would be very critical if they lost that war.

Question: Why did France put so many resources into fighting Algeria in comparison to its other former colonial holdings? Was there anything unique about the French-Algerian relationship. On Wikipedia it says that France regarded Algeria in a way similar t how the USA think of Hawaii and Alaska. Is this true? If it is, why?

Why did France put so many resources into fighting Algeria in comparison to its other former colonial holdings?

Algeria was considered more than a colony, it was a legal part of France. There were a lot of French settlers living there compared with other colonies. It was also seen a potential invasion route to France if it fell into the wrong hands.

As is often the case, there is more than one answer. However, significant contributing factors include the fact that Algeria was legally seen as part of France and not just a mere colony. There was also a large French population there. Finally, Algeria was seen by France as a potential invasion route and therefore needed to be protected from foreign invasion.

Algeria was considered legally part of France and was seen as much more than just a colony.

There was a significantly large French population in Algeria.

Algeria was seen as a potential invasion route into France.


In China, there were warriors similar to ronin - the xia.

As a link, I found only those regarding their philosophy or literature about them.

GURPS Martial Arts

(it's no solid historical work

and I didn't manage to find any better source)

states they were more like Robin Hood than Lancelot

- they were not upper class like samurai.

Korean Hwarang are approximation of Samurai from the other side - they were upper class young men probably serving as warriors, but it's not their defining feature.

In GURPS Martial Arts they are presented as very similar to Samurai, but when I consider what is written in Wikipedia, it might be just a myth.

There is a Chinese saying (in pinyin), "Hao tie bu da ding, hao ren bu dang bing."

(Good iron is not used to make nails.

Good men do not become soldiers.)

For most of Chinese history, soldiers were vilified, rather than honored.

Hence, they would not generally be regarded as members of the upper class, which was occupied by landowners and philosophers.

Most of Korea, whose culture is more similar to China's than Japan's felt much the same way.

Korea had a Yangban class which might be compared with samurai status but was closer to the Chinese scholarly ruling class.

Most historians hold that the scholar class achieved power in China (or Chinese dynasties of whatever race, except perhaps the Mongol Yuan one) while the warrior class gained power in Japan.

During the late 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries, this warrior class became a scholarly administrative class, or at the lower level a parasite class who lived off peasants' labour through small stipends from their clan lords.

A few clans, notably, Satsuma, allowed samurai to also engage in horticulture, but they were the exception rather than the rule.

Before China was unified there was a warrior class(mostly noblemen), until the warlords realized that they could hire peasants with a cheap price and give them cheap weapons to expand their army.

After that, most noblemen became scholars or military commanders, because of the change in the tactics of warfare(the ceasing of chariot warfare and agreed warfare,and the start of surprise attack which were considered treacherous by the noble warrior class but was promoted by Sun Tzu and so on.)

In Korea (gojoseon goguryeo baekje shila Balhae goryeo joseon etc)

you were either commoner, slave, yangban (rich gentlemen class?), scholar, or a warrior called Muin or Musa.

2 of the ways of getting a government position were to become a scholar or a muin thru tests.

A warrior class like the ninja came about because commoners wanted to fight upper class.

There wasn't really a situation like this in Korea.

Those who wanted to fight became musa and just killed or simply payed back.

But there was "Gaema Budae", "Gemma Squad" or Chulgap busae.

These were squads of warriors who were fully armored in the strongest metal armor and even their horses were fully armored.

Chulgap was made with small plates of metal about inch x 2 inch large that were stitched together like fish scales.

This made the armor lot more flexible unlike plate armors used by rest of the world, it was very light like leather but stronger than plate armors.

Armors made with plates like used in china and rest of the world can be pierced by strong Metal tip arrow but chulgap was nearly impossible.

All goguryeo armors were made in fish scale style.

Later other parts of world did the same.

Studies found out Korea was first to use this style of advanced armors which were one of lightest and strongest.

Also their shoes were embedded with spikes on the bottom to kick and stab enemies who were too close while fighting on horse.

This was also found to be first invented in Korea.

Yes there were other armies who were fully armored head to toe in other parts of world but not like goguryeo.

Also GGR was one of if not the first to fully armor their horses since the bc times.

There were monks who learned to fight (like Shaolin) but studied secret Korean martial arts strictly for quickest killing silent as possible.

They had the simplest armor that only covered the most vital area to increase their speed.

One way their were called were JoEuiSunIn.

When country was in trouble they worked as mercenaries.

They weren't part of any body of government nor any army but them selves.

They would sneak into enemy territories and burn their supplies and murder the leaders.

In Korea warrior classes were more separated by style of martial arts they studied than creating whole new class like Japan.

There were many more martial arts in Korea than just tae kwon do hapkido taekyun etc.

Question: Considering that the  Samurai class had its distant roots  in Chinese political structure, did China or Korea have a similar warrior class?

Were there Samurai equivalents in Korea or China?

China also had its own warrior class, as well as the Korean Hwarang and Yangan class.

Yes, in both China and Korea, there were similar warrior classes. In China, there was the Xia, whilst in Korea, there were classes such as the Hwarang or the Yangban.

In China, there was a similar warrior class known as the Xia.

In Korean, there were other warrior classes that existed, such as the Hwarang or the Yangban.


Soviet Navy's role was negligible compared to that of either the Soviet Army or the Navies of the Western Allies.

This is not surprising given the essentially continental nature of the USSR.

The other two answers give the glorified official version which inflates ridiculously the damage inflicted on the Axis.

Early in the war, the Baltic fleet was locked up in Leningrad; Tributs kept sending submarines on one way missions to show that he was doing something.

After the cruiser Red Ukraine was lost in 1941, the use of larger ships had to be sanctioned by Moscow.

Indeed, the Northern fleet helped with the Arctic Convoys, and late in the war both Baltic and Black sea fleets were more active, but all their achievements pale compared to what the Red Army did.

PS.

The Soviet Naval Strategy was heavily directed towards Sea denial (the Shipbuilding Ministry was unofficially known as "Наркомат подводных лодок" - Submarine Ministry) which is not surprising given the aforementioned continental nature of the USSR.

One might find Анализ эффективности советского подводного флота в годы Второй мировой войны enlightening, especially its scathing criticism of the official historiography.

Unlike Soviet ground forces the fleet was well prepared at the beginning of German invasion and did not panic or wait for orders.

For example as early as August 1941 Baltic fleet air force bombed Berlin from the island Ezel.

In 1941 Baltic fleet placed 12047 mines.

In 1943 the Finns together with the Germans successfully placed a net across the Gulf of Finland which Soviet submarines could not penetrate.

The operations of the Baltic fleet became confined to the Gulf.

Nevertheless the fleet played a serious role during the blockade of Leningrad and associated operations.

For instance they supported the offensive north of Leningrad with about 200 high-caliber guns.

The fleet also set up some fleet units on the lakes surrounding Leningrad, the Chud, Ladoga, Onega and Ilmen lakes.

In 1944 Finland started to remove the barrier net, increasing the possibilities for Soviet fleet.

Overall they sunk 280 enemy warships and 624 transports, including 2 pre-dreadnought battleships, 3 cruisers, 16 destroyers, and 16 submarines.

The Fleet executed 24 landing operations and 158,000 aerial sorties.

100,000 Baltic fleet personnel were awarded decorations and 137 became Heroes of the Soviet Union.

The Black Sea Fleet also was not caught by surprise; on the night of the June 22 German attack on the USSR they successfully defended against a German surprise air strike.

Throughout the war the Black Sea Fleet made 13 landings, sank 508 enemy ships, and transported 2 million passengers and 8 million tonnes of freight.

The Northern Fleet during the war sank over 200 enemy warships and 400 transports and destroyed over 1300 planes.

The Pacific Fleet mostly did not participate in the war until the 1945 war against Japan.

Many of its personnel did participate in the fight against Germany as members of other units.

Source http://militera.lib.ru/enc/0/djvu/enc_vov1985.djvu

Baltic fleet

The fast German advance up the Baltic coast pushed the Soviet fleet back to bases in the gulf of Finland (Leningrad and Kronstadt).

From here their operations were severely limited by German and Finnish mines.

See the wikipedia page .

Here is a description of mine-laying activity in gratuitous detail .

Mine were layed by Germany, their co-belligerent Finland, as well as by Sweden .

The Baltic fleet did participate in the Siege of Leningrad , but it looks like their main contribution was in aviation.

The Russian submarines in the Baltic appear to have been disruptive, but weren't very effective and did not present a substantial threat .

Black Sea

Mostly inaccessible to the Germans.

As with the Baltic, their western bases were quickly taken by German land force.

The Russian navy had a huge surface fleet advantage, against the Romanian and Bulgarian navies, but this was completely nullified by German air superiority.

In this case the German land advance took all major Soviet shipyards, leaving the fleet based in Georgia with inadequate repair facilities, hindering their operational capabilities .

They were able to give some support to, and helped to evacuate, coastal cities.

Other

The Northern fleet was involved in protexting the Arctic Convoys , and supplied naval infantry forces to the Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive against German forces in northern Finland and Norway.

The Pacific fleet participated in the Soviet invasion of Manchuria .

The Caspian

Flotilla was involved in supplying Stalingrad (via the Volga, which flows into the Caspian) as well as supplying other fighting in the Caucasuses.

The Soviet navy played an auxiliary role throughout the entirety of the Second World War.

The Baltic fleet was mainly locked in by German and Finnish mines, while the Black Sea fleet mainly participated in evacuation operations (Odessa and Sevastopol) and after the Germans retreated in 1943, attempted to gain control from German and Romanian forces.

The Navy also participated in numerous landing operations in the Black Sea (Malaia Zemlia) for which Tsezar Kunikov is famous, and Brezhnev, who took credit he didn't deserve.

Furthermore, Soviet Naval Infantry participated in numerous battles once their ships were disabled or there was a need for manpower.

From Leningrad, to Odessa, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, Novorossiisk, and 'special forces' operations (mainly conducted by naval recon troops), Soviet navy personnel made up a significant and important part of many Red Army operations.

The Germans nicknamed them 'The Black Death'.

the soviet fleet did assist on the arctic convoys as mentionedin a post.it was also a soviet submarine that sank a german hospital ship willhiem gustloff that was acting as a evacuation ship as the russians advanced on the eastern front.

wasn't the only timea hospital ship was attacked.

a dutch and australian hospital shipswere attacked in the pacific by the imperial japanese navyin 1942

In the Black sea there was also an Italian naval group of small ships.

Ans the germans managed to send a group off small speedboats using the Danube river to reach the Black sea.

Question: Most books about WWII speak of the naval battles of Allied and Axis powers during the war, but none about the Soviet Navy. The Soviets had an active fleet at the time - why did it not engage the Germans at sea?

What was the role of the Soviet Navy during WWII?

The Soviet navy had a role but it was relatively minor and did not present a substantial threat. They had a huge surface fleet advantage but this was wiped out by German air superiority.

Whilst the Soviet Navy's role in WWII was smaller than that of the Soviet infantry or other Allied navies, the various fleets did play a significant role in delivering supplies to other Soviet forces, protecting convoys and carrying out numerous landing operations. The Baltic fleet was severely restricted owing to the Germans and Fins placing mines and a net across the Gulf of Finland, but despite this, the Soviet Navy was still responsible for the sinking of hundreds of enemy warships, transports and planes. On top of this, where deemed necessary, navy personnel were also provided as support for the infantry and other operations.

The Soviet Navy's role in WWII was much smaller than that of the Soviet Army or the Navy's of the Western Allies. Their strategy was directed towards preventing the enemy from using the sea in the conflict.

The different Soviet fleets were involved in WWII to different extents but between them sunk thousands of enemy ships, transports and plans. The Baltic fleet alone placed over 12,000 mines.

Although Russian submarines appear to have been disruptive, the Soviet navy does not seem to have been seen as a huge threat. Any advantages they may have had were nullified by Germany superiority in the air.

German and Finnish activities in the gulf of Finland significantly restricted the operations of the Soviet Baltic fleet. This include the placing of mines and, in particular, a net placed across the Gulf which Soviet submarines were unable to penetrate. Other German activities, such as the capturing of Soviet shipyards, also had a significant impact on Soviet naval operations.

The Soviet Pacific fleet did not participate until the war with Japan in 1945.

The Soviet Navy played a significant part in supporting other land and air operations. They provided manpower for the Soviet infantry and participated in numerous landing operations, as well as delivering supplies to other Soviet forces.

The Soviet navy was involved in protecting Arctic convoys and delivering other supplies to various Soviet forces.


As a melee fighter, heavy cavalry would have depended on armor to block melee weapons once they got in range, and that alone would justify its use.

As far as effectiveness against firearms the best I've ever found is that quality armor of the time was somewhat effective against small arms and muskets at range, though muskets could easily penetrate at close range.

While I haven't been able to find exact distances, I would expect this also gave Heavy Cavalry a range where musket fire was ineffective and they would be able to close before infantry could reload.

Rifles of the period had longer range and took longer to reload, which would indicate they were more effective against armor though it may have been a wash due to longer reload times, but I can't conform that.

Rifles and rifle companies were also far less common at the time so the decision to wear armor was likely based more on fighting musket armed soldiers as that was the more common opponent.

Just to add a note about cannons: fragmentation is a very common source of injury --

be it wood splinters, bone, rocks, or shrapnel from the shell --

link, graphic images of wounds .

This could have impacted the desire to wear armour.

However, wikipedia and Body Armor:

Cuirass and Helmet seem to indicate that fragmentation/shrapnel was not a factor at all in wearing armour.

history.stackexchange.com/users/103/Sardathrion - against SE abuse

Without getting too involved in a discussion of terminal ballistics, the Napoleonic period armour certainly offered some protection against firearms, but it was only effective up to a point.

This picture shows a a French cavalry cuirass (a breastplate worn as body armour) from Waterloo on display in the Musée de l’Armée: A cannonball from a British 9lb cannon can do a lot of damage!

Further down the scale, a simple musket-ball could also kill an armoured cavalryman at that time.

This is the cuirass of Lieutenant Colonel Achambault: Looking at the state of his cuirass, you probably won't be surprised to learn that he was killed while leading the 9th Cuirassiers during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870.

Now, I've also seen plenty of cases where Napoleonic period armour shows dents from musket balls that didn't penetrate.

In those cases it most definitely saved lives and prevented serious injury.

The guy in this cuirass probably survived this shot: Without the armour, he would certainly have had a much worse day.

If this link works, see picture of a Napoleonic era Cuirass (armed cavalryman's breast plate)

with what appear a hole in it made by a cannon ball, apparently on entry and exit: Cuirass hit by cannon ball I doubt the cuirassier wearing it survived.

As for muskets, I have certainly read of how at the battle of Waterloo, when French heavy cavalry, with armoured breast plates like the cuirass above and metal helmets, confronted British infantry, men noticed a distinctive rattling sound of musket balls bouncing off the metal armour, suggesting that it did protect against small arms fire.

However, as far as I know, unlike in the Middle Ages men, were never armoured head to foot nor did horses have armour.

My guess, only, is that armour in this period was particularly although not exclusively for protection against the swords and lances of enemy cavalry.

The latter, attacking from roughly the same height, and keeping their guard up against counter-blows, would most often land blows on the upper part of the cavalryman's body, hence armour being mainly on chest, back and head.

The arms were presumably less protected because they needed to be freer to hold the reins and wield a sword.

The early Napoleonic cuirassier cuirasses were intended to withstand three musket shots at close range.

This was never achieved in practice.

Later the official standard was for the cuirass to withstand one musket shot at long range.

Elting, J.R. Swords Around a Throne (1988) p. 230.

The cuirass was effective at stopping long range musket balls, but not those received at shorter ranges.

In the evening after the Battle of Quatre Bras, Colonel Frederick Ponsonby, commander of the British 12th Light Dragoons, examined the corpses of French cuirassiers and was gratified in finding many with musket ball holes in their cuirasses, one with no less than three.

Haythornthwaite, P.J. Napoleonic Cavalry (2001), London, p. 59.

Yes, it did help.

Even now, soldiers use helms and vests.

Only helm, as it was found during the WWI, decreases the number of KIA in troops.

(But increases the number of wounded) http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~lori/mathed/problems/sloanA307.html M-1 helmet worn in World War II had saved 76,000 American infantrymen from serious injury or death ( https://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/a-heads-up-about-helmets/ )

Of course, more armour brought more safety.

But it was expensive, so, used only for more expensive troops, such as heavy cavalry, engineers, grenadiers in some countries.

Question: During the Napoleonic wars in Europe, many heavy cavalry units still retain the use of armours, for example, French Carabiniers-à-Cheval below,   How effective were these to protect the cavalryman against enemy fire, like muskets or rifles? Did they effectively reduce the casualties from gunfire, or were they just used to protect against non-firearms attack like swords? Or were they just used for ceremonial/prestige reasons?

Was the Napoleonic era cavalry armour effective against firearms?

Napoleonic army certainly gave some protection. There are examples of armour showing dents where the musket balls didn't penetrate. The cuirass was effective at withstanding long range musket balls.

It is generally agreed that Napoleonic era amour did provide some protection against musket or rifle fire, but mainly at long range rather than short range.

It is generally agreed that Napoleonic period armour did provide some protection from musket and rifle fire.

The armour used during Napoleon's time was likely effective against long range shots but not so much against short range fire.


It is sometimes argued, albeit farcically in the manner of "For the want of a horseshoe nail", that WWII was started over Germany's inability to deliver telegraph poles it owed to France and Belgium.

For the want of a telegraph pole , the Ruhr was occupied .

For the want of a free Ruhr, a shaky economy was sent into a death spiral.

For the want of a prosperous economy, the Weimar Republic was destabilized politically.

For the want of a stable government, the Nazis were able to take over and start re-arming.

For the want of a regime that wasn't evil, the world erupted into war.

All for the want of a telegraph pole.

But this is less of a national debt issue than the Allies screwing themselves by burdening Germany with outrageous reparations demands, and then following through on collecting them by force.

It convinced Germany of the need to re-arm, and gave the German people a smoldering hatred of the Allied Powers that allowed Hitler's broader war schemes to blossom.

Debt between sovereign states (or separate currency unions) is a peculiar creature.

We can take for example a late 1970s year in which Japan was pouring econo-cars into the US market, US car companies were in deep trouble, and it seemed like every VCR, TV, and eggbeater had a Japanese name on it.

Due to the habit of Japanese not to buy foreign goods if they could avoid it, we had a trade imbalance, and this was 'funded' by 'borrowing money' from Japan.

What this meant in particular is that the Japanese central bank would purchase US Treasury Bills, flooding the US and eventually global economy with Yen.

If we look carefully at what that means, it means that the US printed paper IOUs furiously while the Japanese poured their efforts into making 'real things': cars, TVs, etc., and shipping these to us to consume.

Japan currently holds about $1 trillion in US debt (China, at this moment, has about $1.3 trillion).

If Japan sells this debt to Saudi Arabia, it would be most likely in exchange for oil - something 'real'.

If Japan were to demand 'repayment', the only way that could be done is for Japan to purchase real goods from the US - aircraft, wheat, beef, oranges, CPU chips, lumber, or whatever.

At that point, dollar denominated debt would be repatriated in exchange for dollar denominated products.

Needless to say, anything bought from America is not produced in Japan.

Presumably anything the Japanese could produce would never be bought from the US.

Therefore, Japan would be creating jobs in the US if they demanded 'repayment'.

Probability this will happen: zero.

In short, if the US sells debt to foreign countries that 'protect' their domestic industries from foreign competition, they will tend to accumulate foreign debt which they will never redeem, unless they get in the kind of trouble where they need massive imports.

Another peculiarity of all this is that the Japanese have been big savers.

Therefore, the combined debt of the Japanese government and the American government are 'assets' to Japanese households.

These 'assets' tend to be kept under the mattress, figuratively speaking.

In short, money is earned, much of it is stashed away and never spent.

One interpretation of what money is is that it stimulates production and consumption.

Therefore, as the US spends money like water the restaurants are full of waiters pocketing tips that are using it to buy gasoline which the station uses to buy gas which the oil company uses to run refineries, etc., etc.

If the wage earner chooses in instead to park it in a safe, it doesn't stimulate commerce.

If it sits in the safe until the 20-something retires at age 55, that currency does not act as money over a period of, say 30 years.

That is 30 years of potential vendors not working and not earning those yen or dollars.

Therefore, as the US 'prints' money and puts it in circulation, foreign debtors remove it by 'saving' it in their respective central banks.

This is also a problem within the US: wealthy people also 'hoard' cash, so to speak, rather than keeping it circulating in the economy to stimulate further activity.

I am skeptical as well.

One could argue that debt (internal and external) is inversely correllated with state strength, and that war is a way of reinforcing state strength.

One might argue that this is part of the grounds for the war of 1812 (the segment of the population that backed the war was motivated in part by their loathing for British creditors).

Ultimately there are books written about why nations go to war, and I believe the only consensus is that there is no single reason why nations go to war.

The set of reasons varies by country and by decade.

(Any answer for the period of the Congress of Vienna is probably not applicable to the post WWII period, nor can answers from the current era be compared with answers from the bipolar cold war regime.

I also expect that it would be tough to prove, since I sincerely doubt that the agressor would admit "We're going to war because we're deadbeats!".

However you could probably assemble a dataset of wars and graph the trade deficit between the initiating parties.

(I think that allies would cloud the issue); the graph would be an interesting resolution to the question.

One proximate cause of World War II was the Versailles treaty, and the huge reparations debt it imposed on Germany.

One of Hitler's main platform planks was to revitalize the German economy by "tearing up" that Treaty.

Under the Dawes Plan of 1928, Germany would have been paying off Versailles debt for 60 years, all the way to 1988, if it had not been wiped out by World War II.

I am rather skeptical of the theory that leaders go to war to get people's mind off debt, but it's certainly a discussionable matter.

However, I do have an example for you of a debtor invading his creditor to write off the debt : here .

Spoiler: it backfired rather spectacularly.

Question: I saw in an article mentioning that there is a link between national debt and starting wars I don't recall where I've seen it mentioned to look for further references on the matter.    Are there known historical studies or academic papers that examined historical data to find a causation link between national debt/trade deficits and starting wars?  Mention: When I say national debt I refer to both external debt and internal debt (both to internal debtors and through fiat currency).

Is there a link between national debt/trade deficit and starting a war?

One cause of WWII was the the huge reparations debt imposed on Germany after WWI.

There is no clear evidence of a correlation between state debt and starting wars, however, theoretically it could make logical sense. Additionally, it is widely agreed that the debts placed on Germany due to the Treaty of Versailles did contribute towards starting the Second World War.

It is arguable that a country with large debts could be a weak country and a war could be seen as a way to increase the strength of the country.

The treat of Versailles, which placed Germany heavily in debt, is considered to be a factor that contributed towards the outbreak of the Second World War.


here are a few reasons motorized infantry are superior.

Motorized infantry are in the cover of an armored vehicle untildeployed to fight drastically limiting their exposure.

Vehicles transporting infantry can be outfitted with heavy machine guns and anti-tank missiles.

Mounted guns can be significantly larger than what a person couldcarry.

Smaller machine guns can be used that could be carried by a person,but by mounting them accuracy can be improved and the shooter can bebetter shielded.

Vehicles can have more powerful sensor arrays that can provide more and better information than previously possible.

Technology is advancing to the point where this is starting to be less relevant.

Interesting question.

Believe me

I'm no military expert but the strategic value of motorized infantry

is two fold: (1) Speed.

As you mentioned before, this is probably the greatest advantage.

Towing capacity.

Obviously trucks, motorbikes and the like optimized for military usage have a much greater towing capacity.

They are able to deploy heavier equipment, weapons or provisions into the field allowing infantry to spend more man hours on the ground.

Otherwise foot soldiers would rely primarily on...well foot.

Marches.

Some trucks may have pintle mounted weapons like light machine guns or grenade launchers.

The problem is that many motorized trucks that are not cavalry (i.e. tanks, APCs, IFVs) are not armored enough to provide a real tactical advantage in terms of infantry engagements.

But the greatest power lies in rapidly deploying forces to areas of need allowing quicker and more precise responses to enemy advances.

In other words speed and carrying power are probably the biggest advantages.

Take a look at these: M3

Halftrack German Armored Recon.

Vehicles Soviet armored car

I would add few other notices over great advatange of speed: morale effect: derives from mobility, simply the soldiers in a motorizedinfantry feel less trapped in situations since if there is astrategic retreat, their mobility is higher, so they have higherchance not to get chased by enemy.

fatigure advatange: this is not closely related to speed, but worths to mention they don't have to walk tens of miles/kilometers

, they won't be that tired after a movement order.

They can carry more and heavier supplies.

And some drawbacks:

They are dependent on fuel.

Obvious.

They are more dependent on weather.

Just remember muddy ugly war terrain where the motorized infantry have to struggle with stucked armoured cars.

They are more dependent on good supply of spare parts of cars, and repair support.

Those cars won't work forever without maintainance.

They are more costy.

Obvious.

You can release several dozens of people with a simple gun and some clothes and supply items on the cost of one car without crew.

Did I miss something?

I want to add one more note.

In Soviet Army (and Russian Ground Forces) commander of the AFV (BMP-1, BMP-2, etc.)

commands infantry platoon attached to this vehicle too.

Obviously, cooperation between infantry and AFV would be better.

I rode an armored personnel carrier in combat in Vietnam and Cambodia.

From my personal experience I would agree with what others have said, only emphasizing the advantage of much greater supplies of food, water, and particularly ammunition.

I am a lifetime member of the "plenty more where that came from" school of thought.

Another plus not mentioned was that when you stood atop a personnel carrier, your head was twice as far off the ground, making it easier to relate the ground around you to the images in the military photo map in your hand.

These days, GPS does a better job assisting the ground pounder with the art of land navigation.

My time to add something.

Don't forget about the logistic.

For example, motorized infantry has definitely bigger chances to provide good medical service to wounded soldiers, or take them out of the battlefield even during the fights.

Question: My understanding is that motorized infantry have greater combat value than "standard" infantry (foot soldiers armed with rifles, or perhaps machine guns), over and above their greater mobility.  Do the vehicles give motorized infantry better protection? Do the vehicles carry firepower over and above what their soldiers are carrying? Or do the soldiers carry heavier weapons because they are being transported?

What advantages have motorized infantry enjoyed over standard infantry besides speed?

Mounting guns means more weaponry can be carried and improves accuracy. Forces can also be deployed rapidly giving a quicker a more precise response.

It is generally considered that the main advantage of motorised infantry is the ability to carry heavier equipment and weaponry. However, other advantages include the ability to use more precise technology and deliver medical support to personel. Additionally, motorised infantry are likely to be less exposed, which will influence their morale.

Vehicles are generally more high-tech and are able to be more precise in their movements and attacks.

Motorised infantry are much more able to provide medical support to the wounded in the field.

Motorised infantry will have a different psychological experience as they will feel less exposed in combat.


One reason was that the "Anglos" brought their own women with them.

For instance, there were women passengers on the Mayflower.

And twelve years after the settlement at Jamestown, there was a boatload of women (in 1619), followed by many more.

The Spaniards also had more "multicultural" dealings, as noted in the comments above.

The Spanish religious ideology was one of converting the "natives," which in practice meant absorbing them into Spanish society and intermarrying with them once they converted.

English society did not have similar mechanisms for absorbing children of mixed parentage.

In the rare situations where Anglos produced "half breeds" with Indians, the children almost always became "Indians" rather than Anglos.

"American" men DID produce children with African slaves.

But they were consigned to the lowest levels of society (until modern times), and didn't "mix" with the rest of American society. "

Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" was the North American ethos as late as the 1960s.

I think you could argue for a fundamental difference in the Spanish and English attitudes toward "colonization" of the Americas, based partly on different historical backgrounds and partly on where they started.

Once the Spanish got to the Americas proper (as opposed to the Caribbean islands), they encountered populous agricultural and urban societies, including sophisticated kingdoms and empires (especially the Aztecs and Incas).

The model provided by Cortes and Pizarro thus became (crudely speaking):

"Conquer the native kingdoms and rule over them (and marry their women).

When you want more land, go on expeditions to conquer it.

The strong Catholic missionary impulse of the time also meant a strong emphasis on converting the natives to Catholicism, which made it easier for Spaniards to intermarry with them.

(Note that both Cortes and Pizarro married local princesses.)

This was arguably a continuation of the Reconquista model: conquer the Moorish kingdoms and rule over the (non-Christian) locals as you try to convert them.

It probably also was affected by the multinational nature of the Spanish/Hapsburg empire in the 16th Century: if Flemish and Italians and Germans could all be subjects of the Emperor, so could Indians in the Americas.

For the English colonists (as well as, e.g., the Dutch in New Amsterdam), the model was more "Buy or steal small amounts of land from the natives to set up your own independent settlements.

Don't interact with the natives aside from trade, and when you want to expand, buy or steal more land and push the natives away (or kill them).

Thus, despite the interactions and occasional intermarriage that did take place (and the occasional efforts at missionary activity), English colonists tended to remain segregated in their own societies, building their own towns and gradually expanding at the expense of native populations.

Another possible factor: The lands the Spanish conquered included numerous long-established agricultural societies (with genuine cities), which generally meant they had higher populations.

This probably ensured that the natives remained relatively numerous compared to the European conquerors/settlers despite the massive die-offs from Old World diseases.

The lower population density in most of North America (fewer agricultural societies, and none of them with actual cities) probably meant that it was easier for English colonists to outnumber the natives over time.

Interracial marriage is not so uncommon.

Probably the absence of same-race women played a role, but Portuguese were also well known to marry local wives in Africa,

while British and French people usually didn't The fact that Portuguese and Spaniards have a multirracial origin (arab, celtic, roman, goth) might also have some influence.

One theory is that King Phillip's war was the cause.

The idea behind this theory is simple: When the pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1620, the Native Americans aided them in establishing themselves, and helped them not to starve, by teaching the pilgrims, people who had lived as refugees in the urban Netherlands for a generation, to learn farming and survival skills.

They even celebrated the first thanksgiving together.

In New England, generally speaking, the contact between the Europeans and Natives Americans were more than cordial - there was intermarriage, and conversion to Christianity, and peaceful coexistence.

By about 1670, the mixing of the two populations, combined with declining Native American populations and quality of life, set the stage for "King Phillips War" Supporting Source and Wikipedia links.

The common narrative goes like this: Metacom, a Native American nicknamed "King Phillip" by the settlers, started attacking and slaughtering the colonial population.

The English colonialist responded in kind, slaughtering the Native American population.

Both sides killed whichever "enemy" they came across, including women and children.

Persons of mixed heritage were victims of both sides.

5% of the settler and 40% of the Native American population died.

The general slaughter led to well defined racial identities that didn't exist before the war, and set the stage for future separate ethnic trends in North America.

There is, of course, an opposing theory presented in this book that the war was instead a civil war intended to increase British control of the region, which used "divide and conquer" strategies, split what was a unified community to increase colonial power.

One results of the increase British control was marginalization of the Native population, and a stronger racial identity for the settlers.

The British then used racial identity through the colonies to maintain power.

"Divide and Conquer"

Especially agree with the above comment on King Phillip's War...which was then followed by the French and Indian War.

In the US South treatment of native populations was quite brutal..with both Northern and Southern "brutalities" converging as US Settlers started pouring into Ohio then heading West.

Allan W Eckert wrote I think excellent albeit fictional accounts of the early era.

The stories only grow tragic and more dramatic as "the United States" crosses the Mississippi into the Wild West.

Question: A large part of the current population of South America are descendants of both native Americans and Europeans. In contrast, in north America the intermingling of native Americans and Europeans was significantly less common. What are the historic reasons for this difference?

Why did native Americans and Europeans mix in South America but not in North America?

The Spanish and British colonising attitudes were different in relation to historical backgrounds. The Spanish colonial ideology was based on converting the locals to catholicism and that made it easier to intermarry.

There are number of possible answers to this question, but the most important factor may have been the difference in philosopher between the two groups of settlers. Spanish settlers were more interested in 'converting' the natives whereas settlers in the north merely wanted to use them. Additionally, Spanish settlers in the south encountered large agrarian societies, which would have been difficult to take on, whereas tribes in the north were somewhat smaller. Other reasons given for the lack of integration in the north at King Phillip's War and the fact that northern settlers brought their own women with them.

One contributing factor to this could be the differing attitudes of the Spanish compared with the settlers in the North. The Spanish settlers focused more on 'converting' the natives, where as the North American settlers were more interested in exploiting the natives in order to grow their own settlements.

In the North, the tribes encountered were smaller than the large agrarian societies encountered in the south. Therefore, the numbers involved could have had an impact on how much intermingling took place.

King Phillips's War is sometimes cited as a factor in the relative anymosity between settlers and natives in the North.

It is suggested that settlers in the north did not intermingle with the natives much because they brought their own women with them.


In the early days of Rome (kingdom and early republic) large oval shields were used and heavy Roman infantry fought in the manner of hoplites.

Around 300BC the Roman army changed into the form we recognise, adopting changing from phalanxes to a manipular structure.

The Roman heavy infantry adopted the scutum.

Oddly enough by the 3rd century

AD oval shields had come back into use.

I don't believe the Testudo formation dictated what shields were used by Roman infantry.

It was a very specialised formation with many weaknesses.

Given the Roman track record of innovation and their doctrine of tactical flexibility it seems unlikely that their shield choice would be beholden to one of the many tricks in their vast playbook.

The whole idea of their early abandonment of the phalanx in favour of a manipular structure, which coincided with a change of shield, was to increase this flexibility.

There is evidence from Polybius 1 that the shield was adapted from a oval to rectangular shield used by the Samnites (one of their early Italic rivals), so it must have had real combat advantages outside of the Testudo.

Why did the oval/rectangular shield lose its appeal then?

There was another change to Roman infantry equipment that happened during the late 2nd and early 3rd century.

The sword in general use changed from the short Gladius to the longer Spatha .

A longer weapon would have changed the ergonomics and tactics of combat, leading to a change in shield type.

The Spatha was a more "cut and thrust" weapon and was used as an auxilary type weapon in the 1st century and was also adopted into Germanic use.

This was about the time of the loss of a professional core after the Constitutio Antoniniana and the removal of the elite legions' special equipment and status.

It seems reasonable to say that Roman infantry adopting auxiliary-style weapons (this shield and obviously auxiliary-style sword) was part of this process of the Roman army becoming dominated by the equipment and tactics of the Auxiliaries.

: it's all behind paywalls of couse: Polybius

(VI, 23 2-3),

Permanently fell out of use you say?As soon as one needs the same tactics, one needs the same design of shieldsand a similar kind of training.

Here Kyrgyzstan riot police doing what they call a "turtle" with rectangular shields: and those are Venezuelans doing the same:

Now compare that to the classical depiction of roman "testudo formation".

To answer the original question, I believe the Scutum did not completely fall out of use until the fall of the empire its self.

Throughout the centuries of use, both 'core' heavy infantry Legionaries AND the Auxiliaries used oval shields of various sizes.

A comment above noted the move away from the short stabbing Gladius, in favour of the longer Spatha, this was undoutably easier to wield with a lighter, more easily manouvered shield.

However, when it comes down to it, the Scutum was a tool used by highly trained heavy infantry fighting in line based formations.

Training included how to "punch" with it, how to run at the charge with it, and how to manoeuvre with it.

With the decline of the empire, the reduced standing of the Legions, and perhaps a reduced emphasis on training, plus the ease of use and construction of the "old style" oval shield brought about its decline.

Certainly the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Franks and other western European successors to the empire often still fought in line, with various round, oval and kite shaped shields, but with thrusting spears, pikes and even long hafted war axes, cut and thrust swords longer than the Gladius being a symbol of a wealthy warrior, so without the short stabbing sword no Scutum ?

The Scutum was too expensive as was the Lorica Segmentata, and the training of the Legionnaires.

And as was said prior Roman Citizens didn't really want to die in a foreign land

and so Rome had to rely more upon Auxiliaries and Foederati as well as Sagittari, and many others.

Rome became lazy in the basic sense and the Barbarians saw good pay and protection for their families and their tribes who were allowed to settle in Roman boarders for their services.

The Scutum was made of 3 pieces of wood wrapped in leather with cast iron on the edges and in the center.

The Shield they used later was only 1 piece of wood with cast iron on the edges and center, much like that of the barbarians who fought for Rome.

Rome also got rid of the Pila and replaced it with s Plumbart or Lead Dart

it all was because Legionnaires, Scutums, Gladius, Lorica Segmentata, and Pila were costly but effective .

Later Emperor's didn't care about effectiveness, and believed that because they were Rome they were the best military conquerors of many nations.

So came the Comitanses, Spatha, Round Shields, Lorica Hamata, and Plumbart.

Cheaper, but not as effective .

There is no way the shield had cast iron.

It would have been forged out and hammered into strips.

Cast iron is brittle.

Now, the scutum was curved so that a man's body fit snugly into it in combat lines where they could "push" as a phalanx "pushed" but the scutum would have been far safer during the "push" as it offered leg protection and facial protection whereas the greek shield was big and round or tombstone shaped but flat.

Flat shields can be turned by barbarian hands gripping them and because the scutum was cylindrical the soldier could apply some measure of torque to keep the shield from being pulled especially if he was tucked in.

In much the same way if a barbarian was to try to pull the shield down by pulling it outward, the roman soldier could brace it with his knees at the bottom or set it down and use the ground and feet to brace it.

The scutum was advanced weaponry.

The Scutum was discontinued because around the 3rd century AD the Roman Legions were mostly made up of Auxilia.

This created more "barbarian" influence in the Legions.

Eventually the Roman Legionary began to look more like a Germanic warrior instead of what most people think of when they hear the term Roman soldier.

Question: Wikipedia says   By the end of the 3rd century the rectangular scutum seems to have  disappeared.   Why did the rectangular  scutum  design fall out of use? Why was the shield design not commonly used by anyone else later in history?

Why did the scutum fall out of use?

The development of longer wepons meant the need for a new shield. The scutum was also expensive to make and there was less emphasis on training around this time.

There are number of possible factors involved, however one likely key factor was that the shield was expensive to manufacture. Additionally, the decline of the Roman Empire and the emergence of new weapons and styles of combat may have necessitated a different style of shield.

The emergence of a longer weapon necessitated the use of a different style of shield.

The Scutum was an expensive shield to manufacture.

The gradual decline of the Roman Empire meant that less of a focus was placed on the choice of shield or its military advantages.


There were plenty:

E.g. the Austro-Prussian War (1866) and the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871) form such a pair.

Obviously Prussia (soon to become center of the German Empire as proclaimed by Wilhelm I in 1871) participated in both.

As a European who has been born in the 1960s I rather often comment to my friends that it has been extraordinary good fortune for us members of an generation that hasn't had to witness war (from up-close) during their lifetimes (keeping fingers crossed.)

I give credit partly to the shocks of the two WWs (on the destructive side) and the developments leading up to the founding of the EU (on the constructive side) each. UPDATE

: I now realize that I have answered a slightly different question by mistake, i.e. one for pairs of wars with a time span of 25 years or less (sic!)

in between.

Sorry for that.

How about the Punic Wars ?

The first war was 264 to 241 BC.

The second was 218 to 201 and the third 149 to 146.

There were 23 years between the first two and 52 between the last two.

What about three generations in a row?

From the series of Polish-Teutonic Wars that took place between 14th and 16th century, I would refer to three periods of time. 1409-11 (with the Battle of Grunwald , which was one of the largest military engagements of medieval Europe) during the rules of Władysław II Jogaila , then a generation later, 1431-35 , at the end of his reigns, and finally another generation later, Thirteen Years War (1454-66), in the times of Casimir IV Jagiellon .

The French Revolution begun in 1789 and the Battle of Waterloo was 1815, 25 years later.

I think you could also find many examples during Hundred-Years War.

Also crusades can be set in 10-30 year steps: 2nd (1150)

3rd (1190) 4th (1202) children's (1212)

5th (1220)

(1230) 7th (1250) 8th (1270) (dates rounded, full list eg.

in Wikipedia )

The French Revolution (begun in 1789) happened around a decade before the Napoleonic Wars (late 1700s-1814).

That's a clear case, too, of the one leading to the other, as the instability surrounding the Reign of Terror and so on led directly to Napoleon gaining power in France.

One could argue that there's a similar link between the Russo-Japanese War of the early 1900s and the Great War, as it demonstrated that Russia was weak and could be taken.

As with the French Revolution / Napoleonic campaigns, though, that might be too close for you, as you had more or less the same cohort fighting in each instance.

My other example was going to be the Punic Wars, although those too have already been mentioned.

If ever one conflict led to another...

In the U.S., the French and Indian War, 1754-1763 was about one generation ahead of the American Revolution 1776-1783.

If you take the Texas Revolution of 1836 as the "start" of the Mexican-American War, the 1836 start was 25 years ahead the Civil War (1861-65).

The argument is that the earlier wars "incubated" the later wars, as some historians believe was the case with World War I and II.

The French and Indian War caused the taxation (and set up a potential alliance with France), that led to the American Revolution.

And the wars of Texas and America against Mexico sharpened the slavery issue, helping to incubate the Civil War.

The "third wars" in these sequences were the War of 1812 after the American Revolution, and the Korean War after World War II.

There was no "third war" after the Civil War because of the exhaustion of the Americans.

Question: The I and II world wars are 25 years apart, which is within the length of one generation. This is interesting, because it creates a premise for an entire part of a generation to be both without fathers and grandfathers. Have there been other wars separated by the length of one generation (20-30 years)?

What other pairs of wars have had a ~25 year interval?

The gap between the French revolution and the battle of Waterloo was also similar in distance. The hundred years war would also be similar. There are also other examples like the French and Indian war with the American Revolution and the Texas revolution before the Civil war.

There are number of wars with a rougly one-generation gap between them, including the French Revolution and the Battle of Waterloo, the Russo-Japanese War and the First World War, or the Texas Revolution and the American Civil War.


Metohija Ottoman Empire (until 1912) Montenegro (1912-1915) Austria-Hungary (1915-1918) Serbia (1918) Kingdom of Serbs, Croatsand Slovenes (1918–1929) Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1929–1941) Italian protectorate of Albania (1941-1943) Nazi Germany (1943-1944) Serbia (1944-1946)

Yugoslavia (1946-1991) Federal Republic of Yugoslavia(1992-2003) Serbia and Montenegro (2003-2006) Serbia (2006-2008) Kosovo (2008-

I think the Carpathian Ruthenia area (the little triangle on the "end" of Czechoslovakia after the end of WW1) gives us five bona fide separate national entities and more if pseudo-states (such as your Fiume) and other periods of loose or brief control are allowed.

up to 1918 Austria-Hungary 1918 Hungary 1918

West Ukraine 1918-1939

Czechoslovakia 1939 Carpatho-Ukraine Republic 1939-1944 Hungary 1944-1945 Czechoslovakia 1945-1991 USSR

1991 - Ukraine

I've marked in bold where nation states were recognisably exercising full sovereignty over the area.

Looser claims in italics.

Memelland (now Klaipeda) in Lithuania is another possible candidate.

Lviv : Austria-Hungary (until 1918) Western Ukrainian National Republic Poland (1918-1939) USSR (1939-1941)

Reichskommissariat Ukraine (1941-1944) Poland (1944-1946) USSR

(1946-1991) Ukraine (1991-now) This does not qualify as the most number of different countries, but probably qualifies as the most number of changes in national flag.

Cešký Těšin , the western part of Cieszyn, Silesia : to 1918 : Austria-Hungary October 31-November 5 1918: competing Czech and Polish local administrations November 5

1918- Jan 30 1919:

Polish occupation 1919-1920:

Czech occupation 1920-1938:

First Czechoslovak Republic (formalized by 1920 Spa Conference) 1938-1939: Second Polish Republic (Polish occupation after Munich Agreement) 1939-1945: Großdeutsches Reich (i.e. annexed by Nazi Germany) 1945-1992: Czechoslovakia 1993-: Czech Republic/Czechia

U Sabotů , now Šance (see the map ). until 1918: Austria(-Hungary) 1918

- 1939 Czechoslovakia 1939 - 1945 Germany (Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren) 1945 - 1992

Czechoslovakia 1993 - 1997 Czech Republic 1997 - Slovakia

Question: For example, a centenarian who has spent her entire life in  Rijeka  would have lived in five:   The Austro-Hungarian Empire (until 1920)  The Free State of Fiume (1920-1924)  Italy (1924-1947)  Yugoslavia (1947-1991)  Croatia (1991-present)   Is there any piece of land in the world which has been in more hands than that since March 5, 1898 (the birthdate of the  oldest living person )?  If so, where?

How many different countries could a person alive today have lived in without leaving their hometown?

The Carpathian Ruthenia area and Memelland in Lithuania have also been part of many different states over the last century.

The regions of Carpathian Ruthenia and Memelland could potentially have changed hands more than five times since March 5 1898.


There are plenty of industrial uses for steam engines, mostly for generating electricity.

Any coal-fueled power station is a steam engine, or more likely a set of them.

The only big change in technology is that converting the steam's expansion energy to kinetic energy is now done using a steam turbine and not a piston engine.

Since the question specifically mentions railways, I suppose the mobile/transportation uses are the intended focus.

There are still some steam locomotives around, run by enthusiasts and mostly for tourists.

There are some in England, India and China that I know of, and probably some others as well.

For more practical uses, there are naval vessels which are steam powered.

In this case, of course, they also use steam turbines rather than piston engines.

Also, and I suppose this is a big change, they create the heat for the steam not by burning coal but by nuclear fission.

At heart, any nuclear-powered ship is running on steam.

Nuclear power stations are steam engines, they just use a different source of energy to generate the steam from what you're probably thinking of.

So yes, steam engines are in widespread use around the planet.

Steam Engine :

A steam engine is a heat engine that performs mechanical work using steam as its working fluid.

Unless you are specifically referring to steam railway locomotives , a particular application of the steam engine, then yes steam engines are widely used as the most common worldwide means of producing electric power.

The particular class of steam engine most commonly used in this configuration is the steam turbine .

Modern re-invention of the steam railway locomotive is most likely to be considering advanced steam technologies .

Use as a replacement for the internal combustion engine for automotive use has also been researched in the recent past.

Research into applications for modern steam engines seems to have been motivated by a fear of drastically higher gasoline and diesel prices for internal combustion and diesel engines.

With the recent worldwide supply of shale-oil and shale-gas expected to glut the market for several decades, I expect research into non-stationary steam engines to abate.

To my knowledge, there is one single cylinder steam engine at the Hook Norton Brewery in England, still working for it's living, and there are several Steam Boats around, such as the Paddle Wheeler Hjejlen in Denmark, and the SS Skjelskoer built in 1915, both are Coal Fired.

In Australia there are several Steam Driven Paddle Boats on the Murray River.

Most of these are Wood Burners.

A large variety of preserved and rebuilt steam locomotives are still used on well over a hundred heritage railways in the UK, some well over 10 miles in length.

See the list of British Heritage and Private Railways On these lines, there are several hundred steam engines regularly used to provide regular timetabled services, especially from March to October, though Christmas 'Santa Specials' are also very popular.

Many of the services provide public transport possibilities as well, some of the preserved steam railways connecting with regular train services at junctions and termini.

Additionally, there are steam train services run on main lines and even new build and reconstructed express steam engines running for tourist and steam train enthusiasts.

Heritage steam railways play an important part in the economies of many areas in the UK , attracting large numbers of visitors who also use other services locally.

For example The small narrow gauge preserved Lynton and Barnstable Light Railway in North Devon, just a few miles long at present, is reckoned to provide a welcome injection of many millions of pounds into the local economy there.

The cog railway in NH still uses some steam locomotives to travel back and forth to the summit of Mt Washington.

Most have been replaced, but there is still one coal fired locomotive a day that makes the trip

One of the engines on the Welsh Mount Snowdon Railway is a steam locomotive.

Almost every 1 power station that produces electricity uses steam to power its turbines.

Only the heat source (of energy): burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, natural gas or using nuclear fission, is different.

That is why all power stations are located near a water source, so that they can have unlimited supply of water to heat.

There are some steam engines remaining operational in locomotives and boats around the world either for tourist attraction or for the lack of reach of new technology.

Except the ones using directly renewable sources such as solar, sun and wave.

From my knowledge, there is a steam engine locomotive still being used in India from Mettupalam to Ooty route.

It is always overbooked as many tourists still visit and take the train ride.it is a very pleasant trip and the site through the rail route is very beautiful.

Question: Are there any countries in which steam engines have a regular purpose, or are still dominant on the railway? When did they officially fade out of use in the western world?In Australia at least, they are being privately looked into again to make a comeback. Is this the case anywhere else?It's several questions, I know, but mainly anything related to the title.

Are steam engines still in regular use anywhere in the world?

There is still a line in India that uses steam engines. There are also numerous lines that use steam for tourist travel and steam boats that operate in Australia.

Yes, steam engines are used across the globe, such as in energy generation or to power paddle boats. However, specifically looking at steam railways, there are number around the world, and the UK has a number of well-preserved steam railways.

There are steam railways in many countries around the world, including the UK, USA, and India.

The UK has a number of well-preserved steam railways.

There are steam engines in use around the world that aren't necessarily used on the railways, including for boats and energy generation.

Yes, steam engines are still used right across the globe.


The Enigma machines and the breaking of the Enigma code were not the main determinants of the outcome of World War II, but did contribute to the outcome.

There were only a few types of Enigma machines, so they had to be capable of using different encryption keys.

If machines used the same encryption key for message after message, the encryption would be broken before too long, and then all successive (and preceding recorded) messages could be decrypted by the opponents.

The machines had several physical settings (as described by the Wikipedia article ), including selection of wheel order and wiring of some movable plugs.

The usual procedure was to have prearranged settings for each day of use, with the machine changed at midnight to the new day's settings.

In addition, the operator would rotate the wheels arbitrarily (for randomness) before starting encryption of a new message.

His arbitrary selection would be communicated at the front of the sent message.

The procedures are described in more detail on this page and this page .

"Allies" capturing Engima machines (what you really mean was British navy, who then in Hollywood were magically transformed into US navy) was really of no importance.

What was important was capturing code books.

The wiring of the Enigma machine was known since the 1930s, when Polish mathematicians managed to reconstruct it from very limited information.

The latest Enigma machines came with a set of eight wheels, of which three were plugged into the machine, plus a fourth extra wheel for submarines.

There was a "day code" which told the personell which three wheels to pick, how to rotate them, and which nine cables to use on the plugboard.

When a message was sent, sender and receiver put their enigmas into the day position.

Then the sender would send a random three digit key, and then both sender and receiver would switch the wheels to that key.

Yes, they do allow multiple keys.

Typically they had a new key every day.

See this Wikipedia article :

Though Enigma had some cryptographic weaknesses, in practice it was German procedural flaws, operator mistakes, laziness, failure to systematically introduce changes in encipherment procedures, and Allied capture of key tables and hardware that, during the war, enabled Allied cryptologists to succeed.

It was not capturing the hardware alone that enabled the decryption.

The key tables were books of keys to be used on a given day.

The first Enigma machine to come to the notice of Germany's foes was in Poland, around 1928.

Polish customs (and their intelligence service) were suspicious of the German embassy's unseemly desire to get a certain package out of Customs on a Saturday.

The Poles spent the weekend copying the manuals and examining the mechanism, and then delivered it in the Monday morning post.

In August 1939, facing invasion, the Poles gave all their knowledge (including 10 years of mathematical advances in code breaking) to the French and British.

You should watch the BBC series "The Secret War" (circa 1975), especially the episode "Still Secret", which covers Enigma/Ultra/Fish and Bletchley Park very thoroughly.

The Allies were NOT dependent on capturing Enigma machines -- they made tremendous advancements in code breaking without having the physical machine or both plain and encrypted messages.

Yes, different keys were used on several levels.

In an Enigma system, the key consists of several components: Rotors (which rotor is used in which position).

Originally, 3 rotors were used (each with unique wiring).

Later on, more rotors were added (up to 8 by the end of the war).

Ringstellung (the position of the ring on each rotor) Rotor starting point Plugboard settings

In addition, not everyone used the same key:

Some groups (the Navy and Abwehr, for example) used their own rotors with different wiring.

Each group of operators (one army, or one U-boot group, for example) got its own list of keys.

Keys were changed daily.

There were multiple Cypher Keys for example Supply Ships sheltering in neutral ports used the Tibet Cypher.

merchant Raiders used Special Cypher 100.

Cypher Bertok was used to communicate with the Naval attache Tokyo.

Cypher Freya was used between OKM and naval shore installations.

Triton Cypher was used by U-boats in the Indian Ocean.

There were even special Enigma keys created for co-operation between the German and Japanese navies operated on three rotor machines known as T-Enigma under the Tirpitz agreement of 1942 (Tirupitsu to Japanese/JN-18 to USN)

The code key for this was originally known as Sumatra and later as Gartenzaun.

This was mostly used by German I-class U-boats which sailed to Europe such as I-29 and I-52 for example.

The SS had their own Cypher keys such as Kliest many of which were rarely broken.

German Railways had their own Cypher Keys as did various Luftwaffe units.

The Kreigsmarine used four rotor Enigma machines as opposed to the three rotor machines of the Luftwaffe.

These were books of Cypher keys relevant for specific days and the way they were used changed as the war progressed.

Generally a vessel was only issued with a book of Cypher keys lasting three months.

Later in the war Keys would change up to twice per day.

They were issued on pink water soluble paper.

Question: The German Enigma machines are the key for German victories during the early years of World War II. When the Allies managed to capture few Enigma machines and decode then the face of war began to change in favor of Allies.   My question is, is it possible to have multiple encryption/decryption keys in a same enigma machines?So that it enables the users to send/receive the 1st message using a different encryption/decryption  key and the next message using a different key.

Did the German Enigma machine use multiple encryption keys?

There were only a few types of Enigma machines so they had to be able to using different keys. Different keys were used on different levels and they had a new key every day.

Yes, the Enigma machine used multiple encryption keys and changed encryption key each day.


One candidate for "last widely recognized country to be conquered" would be South Vietnam.

From the Wikipedia article : Despite a peace treaty concluded in January 1973, fighting continued until the North Vietnamese army overran Saigon on 30 April 1975.

and: Its sovereignty was recognized by the United States and by some eighty-seven other nations.

It had membership in several special committees of the United Nations, and would have been a member of the United Nations itself had it not been for a Soviet veto in 1957

I started my search by looking at Wikipedia's list of former United Nations members .

Of these, some are countries that ceased to be members because they were absorbed by other countries: East Germany (became part of West Germany; peaceful transition) Tanganyika and Zanzibar (apparently peaceful) Formation of Malaysia (apparently peaceful, or in any case formed from colonies that were not independent until absorbed) North and South Yemen (apparently peaceful) A reference to North/South Vietnam in the Yemen article got me to think about South Vietnam, which is perhaps an obvious answer to the question.

There might be other, non-recognized states: I can think of Biafra, independent from 1967 to 1970 (so in any case earlier than South Vietnam).

Kuwait was invaded in November 1990 by Iraq , and the Iraqis weren't ejected until February 1991; thus Kuwait ceased to exist for about six months.

It can be argued that Kuwait had a government in exile during that time; but supposedly, South Vietnam still has a government in exile .

In terms of "empire" conquering that has had significant cultural effect, meaning a large change in the ethnic or linguistic nature of a large area of land the biggest changes in the last 100 years: Elimination of Prussia (1945-1948) Elimination of Manchuria (1930s) Collapse of the French empire in West Africa Collapse of the British empire in Africa, India and Southeast Asia Creation of Pakistan, Burma and Thailand Elimination of Austro-Hungarian Empire and creation of Czechoslovakia, Croatia, Slovenia and Hungary Collapse of Ottoman empire, creation of Israel, Iraq, Syria and Kuwait

The most recent significant area to be "conquered" and absorbed by another country is the Crimean peninsula, conquered and annexed by the Russia Federation this year.

The most recent time an entire "country" has been conquered and annexed militarily by another country was the de facto annexation of Republic of Chechnya in 2009.

Arguably, Western Sahara could also fall in this definition.

It was decolonized from Spanish rule in 1975 and soon after been occupied by Morocco and Mauritania.

Later on Mauritania retreated and Morocco took over most of the land leaving a small territory in the hands of the Polisario Front, a western Sahara's people guerilla movement.

So, this is not a clear cut case as Western Sahara wasn't a sovereign state and it has not completely vanished but it's recent and fairly close to what you're asking.

Maybe even more than South Vietnam.

Since some people did not like my last answer I will reformulate it.

The German Democratic Republic was a member of the United Nations and was recognised by most countries in the world, including the USA.

In 1990 it disappeared from the map and was incorporated into the Federal Republic of Germany.

It was not conquered militarily by West Germany, but it was annexed by it.

Disclaimer :

The correct answer to this question depends on what a "country" is: should it be de facto independant before the invasion, should it be recognized as independant by the UN, etc. ?

That said, my proposition is: Chechnya, 2000

While Chechnya declared its independance from Russia in November 1991, it had to fight to establish independant institutions.

After the First Chechnya war (1994-1996), president Aslan Maskhadov and Boris Eltsin signed the Moscow peace treaty in 1997, which ensured de facto independance and a form of recognition even if the question of the links between the Republic and Russia was not definitely settled.

The Second Chechnya war (August 1999 - April 2000) then fits this question: Russia bombed and invaded Chechnya, and their military victory led to the installation of a pro-Moscow government and ultimately to the 2003 referendum which attached Chechnya to Russia.

Question: In the Old Days, one country would conquer another and add it to its empire. What was the most recent country to be conquered and cease to exist as a country?

What was the most recent country to be conquered and disappear?

Chechnya and South Vietnam would be examples as well as Western Sahara.

The correct answer to this question will depend on the definition of a country. However, there are a few possible contenders, including South Vietnam, Chechnya and Western Sahara. Kuwait could arguably fit the description as Iraqi forces occupied the country for some six months during the Gulf War.

There are few countries that could fall into this category, including South Vietnam, Chechnya and Western Sahara.

Kuwait could argubly fall into this category since Iraqi forces weren't expelled for about six months during the Gulf War.


According to the historical records of the Cornaro / Cornèr family of Venice, they have their ancestral ground from gens Cornelia, via the city of Rimini.

Here are links for Wikipedia (Italian version is more informative) and The Art of Living Long from Louis Cornaro, William Temple

the family can derive themselves back into Middle ages

so Cornaro / Cornèr family could be good candidate to an old Roman family surviving the Dark ages after Roman Empire.

The wikipedia page on gens notes that Although both the concept of the gens and of the patriciate survived well into imperial times, both gradually lost most of their significance.

In the final centuries of the Western Empire, patricius was used primarily as an individual title, rather than a class to which an entire family belonged.

The gens originally held a governance function, then that governance function was absorbed into Roman governance.

After the Imperial period, the functions were no longer relevant.

There was no reason to maintain the lineage, and the "notable families" bred back into the general populace.

With respect to Latin surnames, I don't have any data on the distribution of surnames, so I don't know if Latin surnames are under-represented.

If I were to hazard a guess, I suspect that after the fall of Rome, the prestige of a Latin surname vanished, and I would expect that today Latin surnames are probably similar to other ethnic surnames in distribution - but that is merely a hypothesis and I don't have data to test it.

Update: Even when Rome controlled Europe, only a minority of the population would have had a nomen .

I cannot cite a source, but I believe that the majority of nomen were from the Urban Tribes, and therefore would not have been "notable".

The governor of a province and his staff probably had patrician nomen; the inhabitants of the province probably did not.

Again, a hypothesis, but I would be surprised to find surnames derived from nomen anywhere other than Italy, Byzantium and possibly Spain/Portugal.

The main issue with sustaining a 'line' is that without modern medicine, a decent fraction of marriages will not result in children.

This ends that gens right there.

If you have children, they may die before reaching the age to marry.

In ancient times, child mortality was high, something in the 30-50 percent range.

Wealthy families might do a little better, but not a lot.

Having a taste for large families helps the odds.

However, rich Romans in the Republic usually restricted themselves to 1 or 2 sons, in order to not divide the estate so the son could have enough wealth for politics.

This put their gens in the "risky" category.

An added risk for powerful, influential families was proscriptions and political murder during the Civil Wars and Imperial age under paranoid emperors.

Entire families could and were wiped out that way.

Roman families didn't last long.

The Julius Caesares died with Caesar.

His adopted nephew's line ended with him.

The last known person with even a remote link to Augustus by blood was the Emperor Nero.

Basically, they petered out and were replaced by new families who in some instances gratuitously grafted old illustrious names to theirs.

This process took place a number of times.

For example, according to one estimate , by 69 CE only 2% of the senators had republican patrician ancestry.

And that was before the large influx of provincials into the aristocracy.

Another thing to bear in mind is that under Roman law a new citizen (a freedman or a foreigner) took the nomen of the Roman who had sponsored his enfranchisement.

So, for example, practically all Gallo-Romans were named Julius Somethingus.

And finally, modern surnames have practically nothing to do with all this.

Over the centuries the original Latin gens were diluted.

Even in late Roman times such names were not common.

In many cases Latin families married into the families of leaders of barbarians and their name was lost as a surname.

Latin names do tend to persist as first names, however, indicating the continuation of their cultural heritage.

For example, the names Julius / Julia and Cornelius / Cornelia are Latin names common in everyday families.

Latin surnames have survived sporadically.

For example, there is one guy in the United States with the last name of Chrysogonus , one of the Cornelian gens.

It is possible that many old Latin names exist in mutated form.

For example, the common upper class Italian name, Schiapelli , may be derived from Scipio , another Cornelian gens.

Due to the use of different dialects and languages in Italy old names have in some cases undergone considerable alterations.

Descendants of those families are still here under different names.

I think everyone will agree that there was a very big cultural shift in Europe during the decline and then fall of the western empire, so much of a shift that Latin died as spoken language.

With the cultural stance switching to the local cultures, a powerful family would attain local titles and create a new regime based on local rule.

As in England, France and the H.R.E., people became known by their jobs or by the places they lived or governed.

The wealthy heads of the great houses, I'm sure, did what they could to maintain their status and as such became big fat targets for every warlord and chieftain looking for loot or to legitimize their own seat.

War is expensive, children at the time not so much so many children were wed into local houses to ensure peace.

So to finally get to the point, many prominent houses of today like the house of Hapsburg-Lothringen do descend from Roman Patricians, if Vatican records can be believed.

My understanding is that some of the prominent Western Roman families that were possible lineal descendants of these families migrated to Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire as the Western Roman Empire fell.

Others stayed behind in other areas of Italy.

The ones who migrated probably intermarried, and were integrated into the elite families of the Eastern Roman Empire aka Byzantine Empire.

After the fall of Constantinople the surviving refugees fled to Italy, and others stayed behind as the Phanariotes under the Ottoman Empire

Question: What happened to the numerous (patrician) families of Rome?  Like the Gens Julia for example.  There are no ancestors today leading back to them like for example the famous Medici family from renaissance Italy. I can't think of any Roman "last names" still in use.  What happened?

What happened to all the notable Roman families?

Descendants of the old families are still around with other names. Latin surnames probably fell out of grace after the fall of the empire.

There is no clear answer to this question, however, it is possible that the descendents of Roman noble families are still around, albeit under different names. Other theories speculated that they migrated or just petered out altogether after the fall of the empire.

It has been suggested that descendents of prominent Roman noble families are still around today but under different names.

Some of the Roman noble families may well have migrated after the fall of the empire.

These families gradually petered out, particularly after the fall of the empire.


The skull and crossbones or "death's head" is not a purely German - still less a specifically Nazi - symbol, but has been, and still is, used by many military units, including the British, Australian and Swedish armies and the US Marine Corps.

The British Queen's Royal Lancers use the skull and crossbones with the caption beneath "

Or Glory" - the "Death or Glory boys", and 100 Squadron RAF fly it on their flag.

It would appear to be a sign of commitment to die fighting, rather than mere "baddassery".

See: Totenkopf (Wikipedia) .

The deaths head (Totenkopf) is a symbol that had been in use by many German and Prussian military units in history, going back hundreds of years.

It was mainly to signify their high levels of badassery.

The SS picked up on this and used it themselves to co-opt that history to mold themselves as an elite force.

Use of the symbol as a military insignia began with the cavalry of the Prussian army under Frederick the Great.

Frederick formed Husaren-Regiment Nr. 5

(von Ruesch), a Hussar regiment commanded by Colonel von Ruesch.

These Hussars adopted a black uniform with a Totenkopf emblazoned on the front of their mirlitons and wore it on the field in the War of Austrian Succession and in the Seven Years' War.

In 1808, when the regiment was reformed into Leib-Husaren Regiments Nr.1 and Nr.2, the Totenkopf remained a part of the uniform.

During the Napoleonic Wars, when Frederick William, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, was killed in battle, his troops changed the colour of their uniforms to black or apple green, with a Totenkopf on their shakos in mourning their dead leader.

Other sources claim that the "Black Brunswickers" were so equipped while Friedrich Wilhelm of Brunswick lived, as a sign of revenge on the French.

The skull continued to be used throughout the Prussian and Brunswick Armed forces until 1918, and some of the stormtroopers that led the last German offensives on the Western Front in 1918 used skull badges.[2] from WIKI

As others have said the symbol is very, very old.

The meaning is both "loyalty unto death" and about remembering your own mortality, not "badassery" or anything else.

An excellent reference on the subject is "Death's Head" by Joost Holscher.

As a symbol for soldiers it pre-dates even that by pirates actually.

As others have stated it was used by almost all European armed forces.

The history of its use for the Germans begins with the Purussian hussars in the 18th Century and the Brunswick forces who went to fight for the British in the Napoleonic wars.

It stayed as a famous and respected symbol for the Prussian Lieb hussars into the early 20th century and then was absorbed into the German army.

The Nazis tried to co-opt it in the 1930s in order to cash in on its extensive history with the German army.

The army protested this however so the Nazi version had to be altered with the addition of a rather goofy oversized jaw to placate them.

The totenkopf used by the SS is different from that used by the German army in WW2.

It's also largely an exaggeration (approaching a myth) that Hugo Boss had much of an influence on the look of Nazi uniforms: those uniforms were based on a universal style used by almost all armies since before WW 1, from Australia to the USA, to Japan etc.

The style originated in Britain in the late 19th century.

Actually it was already present in Prussia at the time of Frederic the Great, whose inspiration for this emblem might have come from some Pandurs units.

Two Prussian hussars regiments used this symbol at this time :the 5th and 8th, the later even shown a complete skeleton on its shako.

And a "Death hussars" unit also existed during the french revolution, between September 1792 and April 1793.They were dressed in black with the skull and crossbones on the top of their jacket sleeves and on the sabretache.

I don't think SS uniform skull is in any way related to similar insignia in other nations, as suggested by @TheHonRose.

I believe it was introduced by Hugo Boss circa 1933 when he designed Nazi uniforms, and the meaning of it was something like "Loyal until death".

I don't recall the reference though; you may want to look into early history of Hugo Boss fashion house.

Now, as to where Hugo Boss got the idea of putting a skull on SS uniforms - that I don't know; Oldcat's conjecture about Totenkopf sounds very plausible.

Seven answers and nobody has gone back further than the 18th century?

From wikipedia :

From at least the 12th century, it has been used for military flags or insignia and as a warning of the ferocity of the unit displaying it.

It became associated with piracy from the 14th century onwards, possibly even earlier.

By the 15th century, the symbol had developed into its familiar form.

The Knights Templar organisation, active from the 12th until their demise in 1307, adopted a skull-and-crossbones flag to identify ships belonging to their vast fleet.

The later Knights of Malta, made up of many former Templars and using the same flag, became known for piracy.

The skull and crossbones as a pirate's flag could well predate the Knights Templar

Question: I was watching  The Boy in Striped Pyjamas , and I saw this skull and crossbones on this Nazi's cap.   Why is it there? (That is, what does this represent?)

What does the skull and crossbones on the Nazi uniform represent?

This is to do with loyalty until death. Before that, it was associated with piracy and even used on military flags.

This symbol has been used historically by a variety of forces and is meant to symbolise to willingness to die in battle. It was used on the Nazi uniforms due to its long history with the German army after Hugo Boss designed the Nazi uniforms.

This symbol is meant to be a sign of commitment to dying in battle.

The Nazis used it due to its long history with the German army after Hugo Boss designed Nazi uniforms.

This symbol had been used much earlier by a variety of forces.


The English Civil War is popular for re-enactment in England .

Helps that it occurred over 350 years ago though.

Spanish Civil War 1936-39 seems to be regularly re-enacted too

but probably not on the same scale as the English or American Civil Wars.

In Lviv (Lwow) in Ukraine they re-enact the Polish-Ukrainian civil war of 1918:

(On the other hand, the "civil war" between Ukrainians and Russian communistswhich also began in 1918, still continues, so they do not re-enact it).

It is not completely clear whether the national liberation war in the Western Ukraine against Soviet Union qualifies as a civil war

but it is also re-enacted: http://www.istpravda.com.ua/articles/2012/10/16/97206/

Russian Civil War of 1917-1922 is re-enacted very often, see here and here for example (links are in Russian).

The interesting point is that there are many fans from both sides, that actually in heart still support one of the sides.

Russia is diverse.

More info can be found here .

The Battle of Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts, of the American Revolution.

Technically, our revolution was a civil war.

The Chinese Civil War between the Communists and the nationalists is reenacted in China.

They are cool and have no problem, because, one side is regarded bad or evil, and the other good ones or saviours.

Hence there is no sympathy clash thing.

Hence everybody enjoys the good ones beating the bad ones.:)

chinese not very good on appropriation, eh?

There has been great sympathy and admiration for Confederate forces and leaders in America , even after they lost.

Because the side was viewed as brave, and deserving a legacy.

The victors could not and did not brand the Confederates as dishonorable scoundrels, blood hungry monsters and cruel war criminals.

Don't we see people naming their kids after Confederate generals?Well, Robert Lee Frost :)

Wikipedia has a photo of re-enactment of the Battle of White Mountain Since Bohemia was effectively a part of Holy Roman Empire, I'm calling it a Civil War.

Question: ...and if not, what is it that makes people comfortable reenacting the American Civil War?  It would seem grotesque to reenact the Rwandan Civil War or Yugoslavian Civil War, for example.  In particular, what is the most recent civil war that people are comfortable reenacting?

Are any civil wars -- other than the American Civil War -- commonly reenacted?

Many civil wars including the English and Spanish civil wars are also re-enacted regularly. There is also great admiration for the Confederate forces, which is also why re-enactments happen.

There are number of civil wars which are reenacted around the world, including in England, Spain and Ukraine. People feel comfortable with reenacting the American civil war because the Confederates were not generally considered bad people, despite losing the war. They even received a certain level of admiration.