[SHAKEDECADE]

When pre-modern battlefields are brought up, I often think of the Battle of the Bastards scene from Game of Thrones. One of the few battle scenes that gives me the cold sweats. Watching the absolutely suffocating clash of flesh and metal is horrific.

[westpfelia]

Some real terror was the early days of WW1. We had long standing generals who just did not know how to adjust to the (at the time) modern battlefield. So they would just lead mass charges into fortified positions with artillery and machine guns. It was the definition of a meat grinder.

I would suggest checking out Dan Carlins Hardcore History podcast for more about it! The series he did on WW1 was called "Blueprint for Armageddon" Its really good and Dan does a great job of pulling you into the narrative.

[sofixa]

> Some real terror was the early days of WW1

> So they would just lead mass charges into fortified positions with artillery and machine guns

That wasn't just in the early days, lots of countries, armies and generals failed to adapt. Cadorna from Italy, von Hotzendorf from Austria-Hungary, most Ottoman and Russian generals sent their men to die the same way at the end as at the beginning. Germany, France, UK learned (sometimes) from their mistakes, but not everyone did. For instance when the US joined, the US commander, Pershing, disregarded all allied military experience and advice and the US army had to learn everything the hard way because they were led by someone stuck in another type of conflict (punitive expedition against an inferior enemy).

But the begining of WWI was especially terrible due to the the emphasis on attack, colourful uniforms, and the disregard for defense. Machine guns mowing troops marching with music... There were mass charges in the first weeks and in the last weeks, but they were vastly different (creeping barrage to protect infantry and soften up the enemy, helmets to protect heads, coordination, etc.)

[pdpi]

> So they would just lead mass charges into fortified positions with artillery and machine guns. It was the definition of a meat grinder.

I read something a while back that, while I'm not sure how accurate it is, got sort of seared into my brain. In medieval times, permanent fortified positions (castles and such) were of the utmost importance, and sieges were a major part of war. With the arrival of gunpowder, cannons could wreck walls and other fortifications, and warfare in the open field largely replaced siege warfare.

The single biggest military failure of WW1 (by both sides) was that the then-modern military doctrine told them to treat trench warfare as slow-moving open warfare, where it should've instead been fought as a slightly mobile form of siege warfare.

[icegreentea2]

"Fighting siege warfare" means that both sides can expect to "win" by doing nothing and sitting in their defenses. It's unclear if this really applies to WW1 Western Front.

Perhaps Germany was in a position were it was happy to sit in their trenches and just endure, but France was not. France had to be able to compel Germany to come to terms and restore French territory (which we should also remember contained a good chunk of French industry). While the blockade of Germany was clearly effective, it's not clear to this day (and certainly would not have been clear to the western allies at the time) if the blockade alone could have compelled Germany to terms.

And certainly the western allies DID attempt to strategically outflank Germany. It just... didn't really work.

WW1 generals understood sieges. They generally understood what fortifications could and could not do. There's a reason the Belgiums kept building forts. There's a reason why Germany built ever bigger artillery. WW1 generals got to see the Russo-Japanese war 10 years ago. They got to see a 6 month siege of Port Arthur. They got to see the ridiculous causalities that modern weapons could inflict. But they also saw something - the attack WORKED. The costs were awful, but the Japanese achieved their goals.

[pdpi]

> "Fighting siege warfare" means that both sides can expect to "win" by doing nothing and sitting in their defenses. It's unclear if this really applies to WW1 Western Front.

The problem with a siege isn't that you win by doing nothing, it's that the attacker always loses, hard, by trying a head-on assault. The really novel aspect of trench warfare is that you had both sides in a fortified highly-defensible position at the same time.

[ghaff]

Yes, and of course after WWI the French in particular largely took the lesson that forts work; they just need to be bigger, better, and more numerous.

[ivanonhn]

I think this is still true for the case of a conventional war. This can be checked in Ukraine right now. As far as I know, most of the losses of Russian troops at the beginning of the conflict are associated with hidden groups of Ukrainian soldiers who did not show up while the Russian tanks were making the initial march. And then, when supply caravans were heading to the front line, these hidden groups instantly attacked them from the side, and then hid again in the woods by the roads. Then the Russians changed tactics - no rush, but intense shelling of the front line with all kinds of artillery for several days, then a small advance, then a sweep, and then the cycle repeats.

[usrusr]

The good news would have been that without encirclement, siege warfare would have been delightfully similar to peacetime. The bad news that this war would still be going on. Which would be good news again, because of all those other wars that could not have happened in the meantime.

[tmpz22]

That battle was a terrible representation of medieval warfare. And it was still one of the better representations of the entire show.

[OJFord]

Is there a similar show without the fantasy/supernatural elements that you might recommend, if you see what I mean?

I don't need it to be historically accurate (if anything I'd prefer it didn't even pretend to be about 'Romans' or whatever, like GoT doesn't, since then there's an historical truth for it to (likely) miss) but the more GoT went on the more dragony, visiony, giants-y, etc. it seemed to get, and while I enjoyed it I do find it harder to engage (or perhaps rather easier to disengage, take a while to get into, etc.) with that sort of stuff.

[tmp_anon_22]

HBO's Rome is pretty good, but only two seasons. Its from the mid 00s.

[danenania]

'Vikings' is great. It has many battles and focuses a lot on strategy and tactics.

It has a touch of the supernatural since it's based on the Icelandic sagas, but it's a fairly minor element.

[the_biot]

It really was terrible, but the aspect of the fighters getting pushed ever closer together, to the point where it's hard to watch it's so terrifying, really did happen. The battle of Cannae was apparently like that, where soldiers were so terrified they started digging holes to crawl into.

The article mentions this as possibly one of the things that make a flanking attack so terrifying -- it would squish the ranks together in a way that a frontal attack didn't.

[ceeplusplus]

The pile of bodies in that battle is completely unrealistic. About the only thing that was realistic was the shield wall. But then the writers left a huge plot hole because the good guys had a giant that could have just broken the lines.