afghan Russiuan war 1900

After occupying the city of Merv (Mary) in 1884, Russian forces crossed the disputed Afghan border and drove Afghan troops  out of the Penjdeh district in 1885. The British, already alarmed  because Russia had halted negotiations by the Anglo-Russian boundary  commission to establish peaceably the Afghan-Russian border,   began military preparations to protect thePenjdeh district, which  was considered vital to India's protection. In a temporary settlement,  Russia agreed to proceed no farther until a border was fixed, but Russian troops,  in violation of their orders, waged a fierce battle at Ak-Teppe on March 30,  1885, severely defeating the Afghans. War seemed likely between Britain and Russia,  but British prime minister William Gladstone (1809-98) resisted militaristic sentiment at home and managed, through negotiations, to reach an agreement on September 10, 1885, whereby Russia was granted the Penjdeh district, with Afghanistan securing the Zulfkar Pass. The rest of the border was fixed in 1887.

After occupying the city of Merv (Mary) in 1884, Russian forces crossed the disputed Afghan border and drove Afghan troops out of the Penjdeh district in 1885. The British, already alramed because Russia had halted negotiations by the Anglo-Russian boundary commission to establish peaceably the Afghan-Russian border, began military preparations to protect the city of Herat, which was considered vital to India's protection. In a temporary settlement, Russia agreed to proceed no farther until a border was fixed, but Russian troops, in violation of their orders, waged a fierce battle at Ak-Teppe on March 30, 1885, severely defeating the Afghans. War seemed likely between Britain and Russia, but British prime minister William Gladstone (1809-98) resisted militaristic sentiment at home and managed, through negotiations, to reach an agreement on September 10, 1885, whereby Russia was granted the Penjdeh district, with Afghanistan securing the Zulfkar Pass. The rest of the border was fixed in 1887.

de saxe

Japs

no idea of what these are.

LANSQUENET DORE

ffl by oliver

ALAMO

there are probably been more lies, legends, and folklore regarding the Alamo than any battle in history. I’ve seen figures from 500 to 15,000 Mexican dead; from 180 to 260 defenders dead. I’ve seen the battle climax at night, at dawn, at noon, and in the evening. I’ve seen Jim Bowie’s incapacitation blamed on everything from booze, illness, having a cannon fall on him, and combinations of them all. I’ve seen everything about Crockett’s death from bayonets to blowing up the ammunitions dump to spitting in Santa Anna’s face.

And I could go on and on and on. Even the ‘de la Pena’ manuscript, purportedly penned by an obscure Mexican officer in the battle, has parts proven to be forgeries.
But the one truth not to be denied is the battle took place and over 180 defenders died. Their bodies were burned, an indication of Santa Anna’s disrespect for the Alamo defenders.

Consensus has it that the ashes were placed in a small casket and buried at the San Fernando Cathedral, at least the ashes that could be gathered from the three pyres. Some rumors have it the ashes were buried in deep holes, others that they were left to nature, some even that they were thrown into the San Antonio River.

Many if any of the myths, legends, rumors, or folklore will ever be verified.

One of the more interesting, yet less discussed questions is whether Sam Houston ordered the Alamo blown up. His distracters say no. This was just another way of Houston covering up his own mistakes.

And the orders he sent Travis on January 16 to do so were destroyed; however on the 17th, Houston did write Governor stating he had ordered the garrison destroyed, and if the governor so wished, all of the cannons and munitions would be destroyed also.

One incident every Texan remembers is the ‘line in the sand.’ Did Travis draw it?

The answer is another enfolded in the blanket of myth. Believe it or not, the line in the sand was never mentioned until 1873 thirty-seven years later when William Zuber interviewed Louis Rose, who fled the Alamo.

Rose verified Travis asked those who wanted to leave to step forward. No one did, but during the night, Rose fled.

Zuber later admitted he made up not only Travis’s’ speech, but came up with the drama of the line in the sand himself.

But, in 1899, a Madam Candelaria, who was held in high esteem by the community for decades, claimed she not only nursed Bowie on his bed of consumption, but also saw Travis draw the line in the sand.

For a while, rumor had it Travis committed suicide by stabbing himself, a version Houston preferred for he never cared for the man. According to Francisco Ruiz, who identified Travis, there was a bullet hole in his forehead. Sort of a difficult spot for one to commit suicide, huh?

And what about the flag? No, it wasn’t the Lone Star like you see at most movies. Probably the thirteen-day siege began under the Mexican Tri Color, possibly with the date 1824 on it.

That was the Mexican flag of Independence, the one under which about thirty thousand Americans came to live the Mexican state that would be known as Texas. Chances were several flags flew, but according to Walter Lord, ‘A Time to Stand’, Santa Anna sent the New Orleans Gray flag back to Mexico City, the only standard remaining under which the men an the Alamo died.

What are they? Myths? Truths? Me, I prefer the myths of my heroes. I don’t want them to change. Marx

ROCHESTER CASTLE

The ancient city of Rochester has a distinguished history which can arguably rival any other in modern Britain. The famous Roman road, Watling Street, crosses the River Medway here on its way from London to Dover via Canterbury, and since that time, Rochester has always been regarded as an important strategic stronghold. However, it's the medieval castle and cathedral which attract the attention of the modern visitor, both built within the old Roman city walls, they have resisted siege and destruction for over 900 years.
The first castle was raised here at the time of the Norman Conquest and is mentioned in the Domesday Book in 1086. This early fortification was rebuilt for King William Rufus between 1087-89 by Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, and was one of the earliest castles in this country to be fortified in stone. Much of the documentation on Rochester survives, along with the many dramatic details of its military history - which saw the castle suffer three major sieges within two centuries of its foundation.
Early records suggest that after the conquest, both the City and Castle of Rochester were awarded to the half-brother of King William, Odo, Bishop of Bayeux. The first Norman fortification built here would have been a standard motte and bailey design of timber and earth, and would have almost certainly been erected very soon after the conquest in 1066. Before his disgrace and imprisonment in 1082, Odo was a dominant figure in Norman England and was awarded the earldom of Kent by William after the conquest.
 He is also said to have been responsible for the making of the Bayeux Tapestry, yet it was Odo who was the principal cause of the first great siege of Rochester Castle in 1088,Curiously the 1088 siege was not the result of an Anglo-Saxon uprising, but rather a dispute between the Normans themselves: after William’s death in 1087, his Anglo-Norman kingdom was split between his sons, and his barons, unhappy about the division, rose up against the new king of England, William II Rufus.

The castle that was disputed in Rochester in 1088 lacked the keep but it would have had the bank and ditch and stone curtain wall that survives today (though with substantial later additions). This outer wall that encloses the bailey made use of a corner angle of the former Roman wall of the city, along with the bank of the river Medway. Gundulf, bishop of Rochester, was responsible for its construction, as well as starting work on the adjacent Cathedral.

This Gundulf was renowned as a skilled builder, and indeed he was involved in the work on William’s strong keep in London, the White Tower. Though Gundulf was long dead by the time work started on Rochester’s keep, there is a similarity in design and style between the two. Indeed the tower of Rochester would probably have been whitewashed in similar style to its sibling in London. Rebels Siezed Rochester and control of Rochester bridge,On hearing this King John came from Dover where he had been staying.the King's men managed to gain control of the Bridge and then they had to Siege the Castle.It took about 2 months to capture the Castle.It is thought King John may have set up his command headquarters on Boley hill during this time.the forces erected 5 great Stone throwing engines to pound the defences as well as small-arms of Bows and Arrows.However this wasn't enough and King John's men finally managed to gain entry into the Bailey (Castle grounds) by undermining the Castle wall.Meanwhile The defenders retreated into the Keep.After King William the Bastard died in 1087, a large section of the Norman Nobles in England were unhappy at the division of Normandy which resulted from the Conqueror's disposal of his dominions at his death. These Nobles ( the Conqueror's two half-brothers Odo and Robert, Count of Mortain, Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances, his nephew Robert de Mowbray, earl of Northumberland, Roger de Montgomery, earl of Shrewsbury, Gilbert fitz Richard of Clare and many others) supported the claims of William's elder son Robert, then Duke of Normandy, against William Rufus, the younger son who had succeeded to the Kingdom of England.
Rochester Castle was fortified against the King and soon became a stronghold and headquarters for the rebels. The city was well placed for raids on London and it also enabled them to devastate the lands of Kent, particularly those belonging to Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, who had crowned Rufus and was therefore Odo's and the rebels' enemy. We are extremely fortunate in that the Chronicles of William of Malmesbury, Florence of Worcester and others survive, telling us much about this siege and of those who took part.
Feeling rather confident with Odo in their party, the Royalist troops approached Rochester and called on the townsfolk to open the city gates, ' for so the Bishop in person and the absent king command it' The garrison, who were observing from the castle walls noted, 'that the countenance of the Bishop ill agreed with the words of the speakers' and they quickly made a mounted sortie, capturing the entire party with little effort and carrying Bishop Odo into the town in triumph.Rufus left London for Rochester by the way of Tonbridge, where he captured the castle and wounded its Lord, Gilbert fitz Richard, one of the rebelling nobles. Rufus then heard that Odo himself had left Rochester for Pevensey, the castle of Robert of Mortain, and Rufus quickly diverted his forces. He soon captured Pevensey with both his Uncles, Odo and Mortain inside. Bishop Odo was then compelled to swear that he would yield Rochester to the King, and Rufus, trustingly, sent him ahead with a small royal force to call upon the garrison to surrender.Rufus was of course furious and he immediately made straight for Rochester to put the castle under siege. En route he is said to have recruited large numbers of English to accompany him.
The Chronicler, Orderic Vitalis, tells us that in May 1088 Rufus set up two siege castles to block any exit from the beleaguered fortress and kept the rebels under constant attack. William of Malmesbury tells us that the garrison, under their leaders, Bishop Odo, Eustace the Younger of Boulogne and Robert of Belleme, son of Roger of Montgomery, earl of Shrewsbury, were constantly plagued by heat, flies and disease, and after a short period of great hardship, were compelled to seek terms of surrender, which Rufus reluctantly agreed upon.King John was not happy about Rochester being under the control of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and this arrangement was to fall apart in 1215. The next Archbishop, Stephen Langton, was disliked by John and he blocked his appointment to the position by Innocent III for several years. John was at first excommunicated for his actions, but eventually gave in and Langton took up his post in 1213. Langton played a leading role in the baronial opposition to John, and it was at his suggestion that the demands included in Magna Carta were modelled on the charter of Henry I.

The next phase of events at Rochester, leading up to the great siege of 1215The rebels were allowed to march out with horses and arms, but were stripped of their lands and titles in England. Odo, his possessions in England lost for a second time, returned and settled back in Normandy. He later accompanied Duke Robert of Normandy on the First Crusade, but died on route to the Holy Land in Palermo.

King John ordered his men to dig a mine under the South-East angle of the keep.They shored up the undermined Keeps foundations with wooden pit props.This was in a time before Gunpowder and they used the fat of 40 Pigs to help burn the pit props.It was succesful and a whole section of the South-Eastern Tower came crashing down.With the Keep breached King Johns men gained access.the Defenders withdrew behind the cross-wall of the Keep but were soon captured and tortured.shortly after his own release from confinement.

austrian infantry by italeri

BERSAGLIERI IN THE DESERT BY ATLANTIC

I rate them higher than germans. sorry but Germans formation were not supermen, to be quite honest the bersaglieri regiments, especially the one in the Ariete and Trieste divisions were more effective than the german schutzen.
 Also not every DAK formation was the same, the idea of the Germans being supermen at all levels is  untrue.
 The ariete consistently bested Commonwealth formations (only to be changed TO A german unit in some histories).
I want  to point out several things that people easily forgot…

 there was no "italian infantry" like there was no such thing like "german infantry". The unitys in 1940 were colonial infantry with very few metropolitan formations in the group. Plus they surrendered when water was running low, to my mind a sensible conduct in the desert.
The australan at Bardia got as good as they gave. Surrender after water supply were exhausted was the norm in the desert. The germans defender of Halfaya did the same and still they are considered "supermen".
2) Italian infantry division varied a lot. Some were good some were bad. Same for German and Commonwealth
In prepared position the italian units tended to be
Stubborn
Solid Morale (at least until after Tunisia)
sometime they were well led.
Also italian infantry in the 1941-42 battle was much better than in 1940 (more regular metropolitan units). According to Patton even in 1943 a well led infantry unit like the Livorno division was much more capable than a german poorly trained panzer division (the Hermann Goering).
According to german after action review at Gela the supposedly elite Goering division was indeed a mess. SO I would be very very very very careful in generalization. There is nothing to suggest DAK infantry was so good and a lot to suggest that units like the 164 Afrika division were poor performers and in several cases even the 90th Leichte was not so good (look at how these units were formed).
there is a  myth about italian battalion officers and above being poor. That myth originated in italy in post war period for a lot of reasons and was propped up by selected memories. In reading after action reports, analysis and other primary sources I have never found proof of that.
Also germans commanders tended to put a lot of blame on THE ITALIANS  for every failure (but if you read them everyone has to be blamd, allies, hitler, weather never them or never the superior german soldier…)

Actually, if there was a weak point in leadership often was in company level officers (reserve officers hastily recalled in 1940) and sometime that was shown.
Italian infantry was not trained for attack but for defensive operation in the italian proto-blitzkrieg theory.
Now going to the bersaglieri:
they were trained as shock troops and the training was good and realistic, especially for the regiments shipped to africa.
Bersaglieri had more regular, opposed to reserve, company level officers and their organization was designed to be flexible in explotiation operations. Cooperation with artillery was excellent.
so I will rate them at the top level (again I have no proof that the commonwealth units performed along quality lines, and I think the Maori battalion was ovverated, during the crusader battles a combined arms column from ariete captured a New Zealand strongpoint (point 175) almost without a shot…
In November 1941 the Ariete division was a veteran outfit, well equipped confident well led (even Rommel said that) and well trained. I am   italian but probablY between crusader and gazala the Ariete was the best Axis (if not best overall) division in the FIELD.