Question of the Hour

[Danjanou]

Who was the member of the british admiralty who developed the British navy (especially in the dreadnought class), at the turn of the 20th century? What famous three cruisers were he responsible for? (they all start with I). Which ones were sunk?

Admiral John Arbuthnot Fisher (1841-1920)

http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/fisher.htm

The Battle Cruisers were HMS Invincible, HMS Inflexible, and HMS Irresistible. Both HMS Invincible, HMS Inflexible were part of the force that destroyed a German squadron off of the Falklands. Both HMS Inflexible, and HMS Irresistible were sunk during the Dardanelles action.

HMS Invincible, HMS Inflexible off of the Falklands

http://www.firstworldwar.com/photos/graphics/gw_inflexibleinvinc_01.jpg

HMS Irresistible sinking off of the Dardanelles

http://www.firstworldwar.com/photos/graphics/gw_irresistible_01.jpg

 

[3rd Herd]

My two cents:The admiral responsible for the build/reorganization of the British Navy was Sir John Fisher, First Sea Lord 1904-1910. I think the three  battle crusiers you are looking for are  of the Invincible class built in 1905-1906. Their names are the Invincible, Inflexible, and Indomitable. The Invincible was sunk on May 31st, 1916 and the other two were sold in 1922. Sources:Tin Pots and Pirate Ships by M. Hadleyand R. Sarty. Names of the ships is from: 1905-1914 - The Dreadnought Race http://www.worldwar1.com/tldread.htm. What happened to the ships:Invincible Class http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/invincible_class.htm.
Next question:
What province owned a submarine and who was the Premier responsible?
 

 

[Danjanou]

What province owned a submarine and who was the Premier responsible?

3rd herd you may be right on the third ship of the class, too many flipping ships whose names began with I in the RN.

The province was British Colombia which acquired 2 old subs at the beginning of the First World War for defence. Not sure of the Premier, though Google shows there were two during the war, Thomas William Paterson from 1909- Dec 1914 would be my guess. Sir Frank Stillmann Barnard took over in Dec 1914 and remained Premier until 1919.

 

[3rd Herd]

Premier responsible was Sir Richard McBride, Subs were orginally intended for Chile and ended up in Esquimalt. Comissioned  in the RCN as CC1 and CC2. The feds reimbursed the provinical treasury.Source Tin Pots and Pirate Ships.

 

[redleafjumper]

redleaf this is a family site.


Basically highclass ladies of the ahem evening in Ancient Greece. More a courtesan or perhaps even akin to geisha than a common streetwalker.



Danjanou, the answer you have given, although it is the common meaning of "Hetairai", is not the definition sought in terms of military history.  I assure you that it is term or name of a legitimate group with strong military ties (and it was appropriately chosen!)
My conscience is still clear!  Perhaps another attempt might be more successfull, thought the answer may not be one that is so easy to google.

 

[old medic]

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

"Foreign troops during the late Empire were known as the Foederati ("Allies") and continued to be known as such until about the ninth century (although the title had by then been Hellenized to Phoideratoi (Gr. ΦοιÎ'εράτοι). From this point, foreign troops - mainly mercenaries - were known as the Hetaireiai (Gr. Εταιρείαι, "Companions") and most frequently employed in the Imperial Guard. This force was in turn divided into the Great Companions (Îœεγάλη Εταιρεία), the Middle Companions (Îœέση Εταιρεία), and the Minor Companions (Îœικρά Εταιρεία), commanded by their respective Hetaireiarches."


http://www.arch.mcgill.ca/prof/sijpkes/arch528/fall2001/lecture5/greek-terms.htm

hetaireiai

private social clubs of hetairoi. While these were drinking and dining associations, they frequently had political connotations. In Athens, they were associated with the multilation of the herms and the profaning of the Mysteries in 415 B.C.E. and the oligarchic coups of 411 and 404.

 

[redleafjumper]

Old Medic, that's almost the complete answer that I was seeking.  You can see the relationship of the common meaning of Hetairai to the use of mercenaries.  There is one other meaning and as may appear somewhat obscure, here it is:

In 1814, Greeks, conscious of their classical heritage formed secret societies called Hetairai at Athens under Count Kapodistrias and Odessa under Prince Ypsilanti with the aim of "liberating the nation from the infidel".  The group was supported by the Greek Orthodox church and Greek merchants in Constantinople.  The Hetairai organized popular uprisings on mainland Greece and on the Aegean islands.  These events led to the war of liberation and eventually Greek independence.

 

[3rd Herd]

Napoleon, Clausewitiz and others in the ealy to mid 18th century were concerned primarly with one level of warfare. What level of warfare contributed to Napolen's defeat?

 

[redleafjumper]

Economic

 

[3rd Herd]

Sorry redleaf, hint, what were the British doing with their army which no other continental army was concerned about.

 

[Danjanou]

hint, what were the British doing with their army which no other continental army was concerned about. [/qoute]

Giving them a daily booze ration? Seriously supplying and feeding them as opposed to letting them forage and live off the land. Amatuers study tactics, pros logistics.

 

[3rd Herd]

Napoleon,Clauswitiz and the other grand masters were more concerned about the "grand strategy" of moving armies. The British on the other hand started working on small unit tactics, ie. riflemen skimishers, squad-platoon-company drills. The example of the French column method of attack is a prime exaple. It makes it easy to control untrained troops.
Source: The Art of War, Waterloo to Mons, McElwee William

 

[Edward Campbell]

I would add that:

1. The British pursued (since the 16th century) a radically different maritime strategy which Bonaparte could not comprehend.  The British won the Napoleonic Wars at Trafalgar, weeks before Bonaparte's most stunning tactical victory at Austerlitz.  The next decade was just summing up because the French continental system was dead as a doornail and, with it, Bonaparte's imperial ambitions were dust.

2. Ever since Elizabeth I, parsimony, as much as strategic need, drove British defence policy.  Remember that Wellington was sent off to the Peninsula with one admonition ringing in his ears: "There is only one British Army, sir, and you have it!"  The message was clear and simple: the British were willing to engage Bonaparte on land - to further their maritime strategy (it's the Iberian peninsula, remember) - but only to very specific limits.  If Wellington couldn't do the job with the limited resources available then the job would have to go undone.

3. Wellington introduced two huge reforms to the battlefield: integral logistics and discipline.  (Bonaparte, on the other hand, left nothing much new or original - Fredrick the Great would have been very comfortable at Waterloo; despite years and years of opportunity Napoleon had made few changes to Fredrick's basic drills and tactics.)  Both of Wellington's reforms fundamentally altered the way we fight - and they remain with us today.

 

[Danjanou]

Oh course one could argue the French and to a lesser extent other European powers were forced to use such obsolete and  ineffective tactics as the "Grande Column" due to the lower lever of training their conscript mass armies received.

The British had a volunteer ( if perhaps reluctantly so) army which to an extent could account for some of their innovations in training especially in terms of Lt Infantry/Rifles. That and the Brits always seem to develop/produce some unorthodox leaders from Gage to Moore to Orde Wingate

Of the four main European land powers in the 18th-19th century Britain, France, Austria and Prussia ( yeah I know I'm leaving Russian out but they were really behind in development) only the first three really developed the light infantry concept and most likely due to their "colonial" experiences. The British and French here in North America mostly in the French and Indian War and the Austrians use of Grenzer irregular light infantry to hold their lengthy frontier with the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans.

 

[Spr.Earl]

Jumping to the 20th century.
What job in WW II required you to be illiterate?

 

[geo]

Recruit?
(don't read the fine print, we'd never lie to you)

 

[MacKenzie1NSH]

Jumping to the 20th century.
What job in WW II required you to be illiterate?

Comms/Intel?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Jumping to the 20th century.
What job in WW II required you to be illiterate?

I don't know; but nearly ½ century back we used a thing called the "M Test" (which was, I think short for Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) to sort people into occupations.

If, big IF what I remember is true the requirements went something like this:

120 = some signals technicians, all Intelligence Corps
110 = Most officers
100 = Most trades including e.g. combat engineers, infantrymen, cooks and clerks, too

.
.
.
.
.
90 = there were only two trades which were open to those with only a 90 (and none at all for those scoring less than 90).  Can anyone guess what they were?

 

[geo]

Hmmm.... Boilermen/Stokers and mess stewards on RCN/RN ships

 

[MacKenzie1NSH]

Hmmm.... Boilermen/Stokers and mess stewards on RCN/RN ships

I would have to agree with Geo