NationStates Jolt Archive

Especially those of military history; I'm around, and I've got some time to burn over the next couple of weeks. The further back you go in time, the more interesting I find it. Ancient China is my current specialty, but I'm well versed in many areas and love branching out.

My qualifications are as such: I am a freelance (unemployed) tutor, and I usually get paid for my work (when I have work ;) ). I have a BA in History, Poli Sci, and East Asian Studies, working on a MA. However I really like this site and I'll gladly help people for free so I can stay in practice. Here's the rules.

I'll HELP. I'll not do anything FOR you.

It need not be for anything school related. And if it is, please don't plagarise anything.

I'm imperfect, as is history. There is always more than one way of telling a story or seeing an issue. Get used to it.

If this in any way contravenes a rule on the forums that I'm unaware of, alert me please. Near as I can tell I'm just being a nice guy.

Post here or T-gram me. I'll be around once or twice a day at least.

sup...

umm... err...

yeah... TAG

i might come and ask you a question some time...although i dont really do any history subjects...oh well.. ill keep you in mind...

Goodonyer, Niccolo, old son. Okay, here's a query to set things running. From your studies, what do you think about this: does a nation with superior technology always defeat a nation with inferior technology? Need there be "defeat" anyway -- ie, have any such nations met to mutual satisfaction?

And yes, I know, we'll have to define "technology" and "defeat" if we want to get serious. But I was idly thinking of WWII and the resurgent Japan -- a nation that seems to me more successful as a defeated country than it was as a conqueror. (Defining "successful" in terms of the happiness of the population, applying "happiness" both materially and in that other dimension that some will call spiritually).

There, isn't that a nice heavy topic for a fine, if somewhat mizzly, winter's day?

Technology alone does not win wars. Its merely an advantage to used, or abused.
If that statement were true....

American would have won the Vietnam Conflict.

Hmm. Actually, I would LOVE a nice, concise (as possible) recap of the Three Kingdoms era of China when Cao Cao came to power. I've never been too clear about all of that.

Goodonyer, Niccolo, old son. Okay, here's a query to set things running. From your studies, what do you think about this: does a nation with superior technology always defeat a nation with inferior technology? Need there be "defeat" anyway -- ie, have any such nations met to mutual satisfaction?
There, isn't that a nice heavy topic for a fine, if somewhat mizzly, winter's day?

Well, we seem to have several topics here, so to start I guess we could say that technology is (to use a pentagon phrase) a force multiplier!

You have a man. He can do only so much. Give him a shovel, he digs a trench. Give him a gun, he can shoot somebody. Give him both together an you have a vastly improved defensive position. Now you can dig a trench without a shovel and you can kill a man without a gun, but they both help the process along right?

So technology helps you do more with each person in your "force"...However, without the tactics to go along with them, technology can only do so much. Without the will or morale to use them, tactics can only help so much. Take the British in the Boer war, or the Mongols vs the Chinese.

Now I really doubt the Mongols could be considered to have a vast technological edge over the Chinese; but boy, did they win against them and just about anyone else they came across. That was due to tactics, and morale. The technological edge that the Chinese possessed was insufficient to compensate for the vast tactical superiority and high morale of the Mongol forces.

Lets take WW2 as an example; Germany came out with Jets first, had superior tanks, and in the early part of the war; vastly superior tactics and morale. Did they win? By 1945 US produced more Shermans in a year than Germany produced TANKS during the entire war. But the Sherman was unequal to the German tanks one on one. Their crews were constripts, but by then so were many German units.

So I guess what I'm saying is that Technology is but one of several factors that makes each person on the battlefield equal to more than just one man.

That's the military side of the equation...I doubt I could credibly ascertain cultural superiority based on technological wealth anyway ;)

Hmm. Actually, I would LOVE a nice, concise (as possible) recap of the Three Kingdoms era of China when Cao Cao came to power. I've never been too clear about all of that.

From when Cao Cao came to power? Till When? Can I cheat and use the Book version of events rather than the true history?

Okay, Cao Cao takes control of the government when the Emperor calls to him for help from rebellious former army units. Becomes Prime minister. (around 202AD I think?)

Attacks various nearby rivals, eliminates Lu Bu. It is around this time that the Emperor has doubts about Cao Cao, and eventually signs a secret decree to eliminate him.

Liu Bei joins Cao Cao briefly after Lu Bu's defeat, but leaves on pretext of attacking Yuan Shu before he could join Yuan Shao, his more powerful kinsman after signing the secret decree. The plot is soon uncovered, and most of the conspiritors are killed. Liu Bei escapes and vows to defeat Cao Cao.

Cao Cao strikes various enemies around the central plains, eventually culminating in the defeat of Yuan Shao at Guan Du. Yuan Shao dies of illness caused by stress in a year or so, his sons fight amoung themselves and Cao Cao ends up taking the entire north in the confusion.

Cao Cao scatters Liu Bei at Ru Nan, chases him down into the central province of Jing and eventually seizes power from the recently deceased Liu Biao. Liu Bei, having won the support of Zhuge Liang, an young but talented man, flees to Wu to form an alliance. Cao Cao sends an ultimatum to Wu to send a son as a hostage to the capital and join in an attack on Liu Bei or his "Million man army" would attack.

Zhuge Liang tricks Zhou Yu, commander of the Wu army into supporting the alliance against Cao Cao using a clever play on words. Zhou Yu councils the Wu leader into refusing the ultimatum and fighting him using the elite southern navy. (This part of the story is AMAZING as it is a subtle microcosm for the entire novel)

Long story short, thanks to the Wu navy, Zhou Yu's cunning and Zhuge Liang's miraculous powers, Cao Cao is defeated by a massive fire attack at Chi Bi. He survives the debacle by the narrowest of margins, and never in his llifetime does Cao Cao's kingdom of Wei seriously threaten the South.

In the aftermath of Chi Bi Liu Bei manages to secure Liu Biao's old kingdom of Jing through gile and cunning, then proceeeds to take the Western Kingdom of Shu in a difficult campaign that lasts 2 years. Zhou Yu demands Jing as payment for Wu's deeds and sacrifice at Chi Bi but is repeatedly out-manuvered by Zhuge Liang, he dies of fustration, his anger opening up an old wound. With Zhou Yu dead, Cao Cao unable to press further, and Liu Bei consolidating his gains, an uneasy equilibrium is formed. Thus the Three Kingdoms are first born out of the chaos that dissolved the Han.

You want more?

Technology alone does not win wars. Its merely an advantage to used, or abused.
If that statement were true....

American would have won the Vietnam Conflict.


It depends if you count knowledge of terrain and support of the local population as 'Technology'. Which obviously it isn't.

Thanks, Niccolo. I guess my interest is more philosophical than strictly military. I like your point abt "force multiplier" effect. So consensus is that national "will" is as much a balance-tipper as technology? (Not meaning, of course, that he who most wants to win, will.)

Would you like to have a go at the hoary old "great individual" topic? ie, do the times produce the man or does the man create the times? I was reading recently abt Churchill's generally unsung abilities as a tactician. Writer said that opening the Italian front tied up one-fifth of German forces (leaving them weakened in France). Churchill did this despite generals' objections. So he really DID win the war?

From this man-makes-times theory comes the whole fictional field of alternate history, in which Churchill dies in Boer War, Napoleon establishes secure dynasty, King James III restored to English throne, Hitler accepted at art school, John Wilkes Booth misses, etc, etc. So, whaddya reckon?