History

JKLever wrote:My history teacher fought in Burma during the 2nd world war and had one fugly face - he always told us he'd been slashed by a jap with a bayonet.

We reckoned that was just an excuse for his fuglyness

Did he mention that the don't like it up 'em?

My uncle, Billy Cook, got caught by the Japanese at Tol Plantation on New Britain. Stabbed through the back, neck and face 11 times with a bayonet and left for dead. Made it out though, the tough little prick.

tac wrote:My uncle, Billy Cook, got caught by the Japanese at Tol Plantation on New Britain. Stabbed through the back, neck and face 11 times with a bayonet and left for dead. Made it out though, the tough little prick.

Phurt thats nothing.

My grandad had his head cut off by a samurai sword in Manchuria, but managed to escape by picking it up and diving into the nearest river.

JKLever wrote:

tac wrote:My uncle, Billy Cook, got caught by the Japanese at Tol Plantation on New Britain. Stabbed through the back, neck and face 11 times with a bayonet and left for dead. Made it out though, the tough little prick.

Phurt thats nothing.

My grandad had his head cut off by a samurai sword in Manchuria, but managed to escape by picking it up and diving into the nearest river.

Here's a picture of him . . .

http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/japadvance/tolmassacre.html

He actually lost both legs in an accident years later, and he was a wreck by the time I got to know him.

Demelza wrote:No, I know the Aboriginals are pretty old.........but, like you said, I doubt there's very little record.

The lack of record is a trajedy. It's the oldest ongoing civilisation on earth but lacks the awe & respect it deserves (from both indigenous & non-indigenous Australians) because there is so little to see or touch. I've gone into meltdown with young anglo Aussies who come back from Europe/UK blathering about how wonderful it was because things are so old & yet know fark all about the original Aussies.

tac wrote:

JKLever wrote:

tac wrote:My uncle, Billy Cook, got caught by the Japanese at Tol Plantation on New Britain. Stabbed through the back, neck and face 11 times with a bayonet and left for dead. Made it out though, the tough little prick.

Phurt thats nothing.

My grandad had his head cut off by a samurai sword in Manchuria, but managed to escape by picking it up and diving into the nearest river.

Here's a picture of him . . .

http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/japadvance/tolmassacre.html

He actually lost both legs in an accident years later, and he was a wreck by the time I got to know him.

Nice story!

Mick Sawyer wrote:

Demelza wrote:No, I know the Aboriginals are pretty old.........but, like you said, I doubt there's very little record.

The lack of record is a trajedy. It's the oldest ongoing civilisation on earth but lacks the awe & respect it deserves (from both indigenous & non-indigenous Australians) because there is so little to see or touch. I've gone into meltdown with young anglo Aussies who come back from Europe/UK blathering about how wonderful it was because things are so old & yet know fark all about the original Aussies.

Certainly is a tragedy.
I've often wondered about that.

"Certainly is a tragedy.
I've often wondered about that."

Cheers mate.

Indeed, Mick, over 40,000 years the Kooris changed the face of Australia more than most realize. Would be good to have more of what remains of their oral histroy recorded before it disappears.

tac wrote:

furriner wrote:Indian- ancient, medieval and modern.

Own reading, a carpload of books. First world war junkie, me.

But everything I needed to know in history I learnt from the Flashman series.

There is no such thing as ancient or medieval Indian history.

Never said there was.

furriner wrote:

tac wrote:

furriner wrote:Indian- ancient, medieval and modern.

Own reading, a carpload of books. First world war junkie, me.

But everything I needed to know in history I learnt from the Flashman series.

There is no such thing as ancient or medieval Indian history.

Never said there was.

Yes you did.

Basil wrote:

Q: How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?

A: No-one knows, they've never tried.

You obviously weren't taught late 19th century European history.

Come to think of it, the French put up a pretty impressive (and costly) defence of Paris in September 1914 that ultimately decided the fate of that war.

tac wrote:

furriner wrote:

tac wrote:

furriner wrote:Indian- ancient, medieval and modern.

Own reading, a carpload of books. First world war junkie, me.

But everything I needed to know in history I learnt from the Flashman series.

There is no such thing as ancient or medieval Indian history.

Never said there was.

Yes you did.

To elaborate on what I implied, perhaps loosely:

Indian history: ancient India, medieval India, modern India.

The latter is the standard classification of Indian historians.

furriner wrote:

tac wrote:

furriner wrote:

tac wrote:

furriner wrote:Indian- ancient, medieval and modern.

Own reading, a carpload of books. First world war junkie, me.

But everything I needed to know in history I learnt from the Flashman series.

There is no such thing as ancient or medieval Indian history.

Never said there was.

Yes you did.

To elaborate on what I implied, perhaps loosely:

Indian history: ancient India, medieval India, modern India.

The latter is the standard classification of Indian historians.

Ancient would be Indus valley etc, I take it?

Ah, history! That's what my degree's in.

My area of speciality is naval history, particularly the period usually referred to as the Age of Sail.

Shoeshine wrote:Ah, history! That's what my degree's in.

My area of speciality is naval history, particularly the period usually referred to as the Age of Sail.

I have a particular interest in British maritime history as well, shoeshine. They were giants . . .

tac wrote:

furriner wrote:

tac wrote:

furriner wrote:

tac wrote:

furriner wrote:Indian- ancient, medieval and modern.

Own reading, a carpload of books. First world war junkie, me.

But everything I needed to know in history I learnt from the Flashman series.

There is no such thing as ancient or medieval Indian history.

Never said there was.

Yes you did.

To elaborate on what I implied, perhaps loosely:

Indian history: ancient India, medieval India, modern India.

The latter is the standard classification of Indian historians.

Ancient would be Indus valley etc, I take it?

Yeah. Mohenjodaro, Harappa. Bronze age, etc.

Some lovely sculptures.

tac wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Ah, history! That's what my degree's in.

My area of speciality is naval history, particularly the period usually referred to as the Age of Sail.

I have a particular interest in British maritime history as well, shoeshine. They were giants . . .

Indeed so. By 1814 we saw the one and only instance in history of a single navy comprising over half the world's warships. Staggering command of the sea.

Shoeshine wrote:Ah, history! That's what my degree's in.

My area of speciality is naval history, particularly the period usually referred to as the Age of Sail.

Also known as the age of buggery, rum and the lash or something like that.

Kiss me 'ardy.

Shoeshine wrote:

tac wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Ah, history! That's what my degree's in.

My area of speciality is naval history, particularly the period usually referred to as the Age of Sail.

I have a particular interest in British maritime history as well, shoeshine. They were giants . . .

Indeed so. By 1814 we saw the one and only instance in history of a single navy comprising over half the world's warships. Staggering command of the sea.

The blockade of the French off Brest and Lisbon and Nelson's pursuit of Villeneuve to the West Indies and back . . . great stuff. Some off those seamen hardly stepped onto solid earth for 2 or 3 years.

furriner wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Ah, history! That's what my degree's in.

My area of speciality is naval history, particularly the period usually referred to as the Age of Sail.

Also known as the age of buggery, rum and the lash or something like that.

Kiss me 'ardy.

Rum, sodomy and the lash. If only you was a drinker, you'd have enjoyed it . . .

tac wrote:

furriner wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Ah, history! That's what my degree's in.

My area of speciality is naval history, particularly the period usually referred to as the Age of Sail.

Also known as the age of buggery, rum and the lash or something like that.

Kiss me 'ardy.

Rum, sodomy and the lash. If only you was a drinker, you'd have enjoyed it . . .

And so the poem went: The boy stood on the burning deck/his back was to the mast/ I will not move a step, he said/ Till Oscar Wilde has passed

On an unrelated note, everything I need to know about the age of sail I learnt from Patrick O'Brian.

furriner wrote:
On an unrelated note, everything I need to know about the age of sail I learnt from Patrick O'Brian.

Mmm. Marvellous books, definitely, but I wouldn't necessarily take O'Brian as being a particularly accurate reflection on the navy of the age - except in atmosphere. For example, he made a pretty basic error in not noticing that the rank of Master & Commander had been abolished before the period in which he set his books - becoming simply "Commander", whilst impressment is somewhat overstated due to a fairly common misunderstanding of the difference between pressed men and prestmen (those given a bounty). Nor did the navy routinely accept criminals and convicts, in complete contrast, they loathed the idea of having them palmed off on them and wouldn't take them.

Nevertheless, whilst Cochrane was undoubtedly a fine commander, O'Brian was a little too quick to accept the self-justifying and frankly mendacious memoirs of the man himself, though dressed up as fiction. Cochrane WAS guilty of fraud, not set-up as O'Brian believes.

Oh, and equally, O'Brian was writing largely for an American market, who bought his books long before they became popular on this side of the Atlantic.

The pressing of American sailors absolutely wasn't the justification for the War of 1812, and despite it entering the mythology of American history as an inconclusive campaign (see Wikipedia if you want a great example of that), there is little doubt in historical circles that the US got a comprehensive hiding, having embarked on a war of naked aggression. They were lucky to escape with their country intact.

Nor was the tiny US navy superior in design to Royal Navy ships, it was simply that large, though slow frigates (pocket battleships of the age) were ideal for that small navy, whilst the British had little use for them, but a great deal of use for fast, lightly armed vessels. Once the British were capable of diverting heavier ships, they crushed the USN where they came in contact with them.

Finally, although O'Brian was largely correct in reflecting the prejudice of seamen of the day, it is untrue that French ships were better sailors than British ones, which were much more weatherly, much more durable and much better gun platforms.