I’ve heard stories, I think they referenced it on an old Top Gear episode, where even today, at some automobile museums, they’d have some old time cars as exhibits

And the crank was a known safety trap, even among the staff like, “yes, we’ve had lots of staff members broken wrists here”

EDIT: YAY. Found It! Actually a good watch. Couple minutes on “what was the first car with a modern control layout

Extra Edit: AND it has the answer to OPs question. The 1916 Cadillac Type 53. First car with an ignition key, and a standard control layout (clutch, brake, and gas pedals in the same place they are today)

Tsar Nicholas II would definitely fit that last line

>Because the Belgian front sector was protected by large inundations which made German attacks difficult

For King and for country we

Are flooding the river

Easily actually.

You just take how many men you SHOULD have, and see how many are missing.

You ALWAYS have a running count on these numbers, because that's your manpower.

Think of it like this:

If I have a squad of 12 men, and two of those men get killed, I have to report that, THAT DAY. At the end of every day, I am passing back status updates on how many men, weapons, ammo, supplies etc etc I have, and what I've spent.

If I am a commander, and I send a force of 1,000 to go land on a beach, at the end of the day, I am going to get a report back on what my status and remaining unit strength is.

If I had 300 men killed, 150 injured, and 50 missing, that all has to get counted up by their units, reported up the chain, and tracked by their units, and the units above them, all the way up to me.
Because I need to know that of 1,000 men I sent to that beach, right NOW I only have 500 combat able men left.

This is how I stay aware of questions like:

• the Task Force still functional? Do they still have enough strength to keep working?

• Do they have enough men left to defend the beach they just took?

• If not, what do I do about it? Do I replace the whole unit with another healthy one? Or do I just send some spare men to replace their losses? Where can I get those spare men from? What numbers does everyone else have? Do I just accept that we CAN'T hold that beach, because we don't have the numbers to do it?

Meanwhile, the analysts, and war planners are getting those same numbers too, to answer questions like

-Based on our losses at Tarawa, Peleliu, Guadalcanal, etc "approximately how many men does it cost to take an island?"

-Do we have enough men to take all the islands we need to? Is that plan possible? Is that plan acceptable? Even if we CAN sacrifice enough lives to take every island by force, are we WILLING to? Or do we need to look for an alternative plan? (see: Not invading the Japanese mainland by foot)

-What tactic/strategy changes resulted in more/less casualties? What's working, what's not working?

TL;DR:

WWII, WWI, and every war before it, as far back as civilization goes, armies have always kept running counts of deaths, because

Before a battle - "How many men do we have?"

After a battle - "How many men do we have left?"

are critical tactical/operational/strategic pieces of information. Every unit commander at every level would be tracking and reporting to the people above them.

*Note, the historical accuracy of OUR modern day estimates of those numbers will be affected by the quality and accuracy of the record keeping, and how long ago the records were taken.

*Second note, for a nice theatrical depiction of what we mean here, fast forward this video to 40:45

> man on man is more equal

that statement tells though doesn't it?

HOW is it more equal? This statement doesn't address size in any way. You statement suggests that gender/age is the defining guideline in what's "equal".

people always say that, but it doesn't hold water if we're honest.

Why?

Because when a 140lb MAN picks shit with a guy twice his size, to the point of putting hands on him, no one says, "oh you can't him that guy back, he's too small." Everyone says, "fuck was that little guy thinking? He's about to fuck around and find out. Gonna get what he's asking for!"

So... NO. Is not about size disparity. Its 100% about gendered social norms about when hitting is a "big deal" and when its apparently not.

FWIW that agreement was freshly recommitted to in in Dec of 2022 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_210091.htm#:~:text=Allies%20agreed%20NATO's%20civil%20and,increase%2C%20respectively%2C%20over%202022.

Yup. The “tactical tomahawk” has gotten kinda popular with a lotta guys.

Light and easy to carry. Makes a solid weapon if needed. Makes good camp tool in general. Can work as a houligsn tool too. (Prying doors open, prying locks, smashing windows etc)

One point to bring up that may be missed here,

WHY would an officer use a sword during the gunpowder era? (specifically an infantry officer with a line unit, NOT a cavalry officer)

The answer to that question speaks directly to the likelihood of ever seeing sword vs sword combat.

And the answer is: Self Defense.

An officer's sword in that era served the same conceptual role as a pistol in the era after it.

An extremely close range, personal defense sidearm.

See, an officer wouldn't carry a rifle in those days. Rifles were for the infantrymen on the line to shoot at the enemy.

Its NOT the officer's job to shoot at the enemy.

Its the officer's job to stand back, supervise, direct, coordinate.

To draw an analogy, you can't be conducting the orchestra is you're too busy trying to play one of the violins.

An officer trying to stand on the line and pick off the enemy probably isn't properly doing his job of directing his men.

So officers don't need rifles.

BUT... what happens when the battle goes really badly, and now the enemy is overrunning your position?

Now that officer needs something to defend themself with.

A rifle... maybe not the best option. Not the ideal weapon for close quarters melee distance, and too big and cumbersome to carry around all the time in case anyways.

Nope, but if the enemy breaks through and gets into arms reach, every man clawing and stabbing at each other distance... pistols and swords become VERY useful.

And THAT is why swords and pistols became associated with officers/leadership positions.

In the modern firearms era, we DO see officers start to carry traditional firearms, but even then, we still get hints of the "not a line troop" nature of those weapons. Example, WWI it might common to see leaders carrying pistols more so than rifles. By WWII you might certainly see officers carrying rifles, since they were less cumbersome than they used to be, but even then, by T/O you would typically see officers with something more like an M1 Carbine or Thompson Sub. Smaller, lighter, easier to carry, shorter effective range, but higher rate of fire. You're not picking off enemy soldiers at a distance, but if the bad guys overrun your lines and start storming the HQ tent, you have enough close up firepower to kill everyone coming through the door, and/or maybe blast your way out of there.

Interesting tidbit that I can't speak to as confirmed fact, but I have heard referenced by a lot of the old Vietnam era vets; shotguns. So, even in the Vietnam era, some officers carried pistols, some M16s, but then shotguns got popular. With the whole "personal defense weapon" idea in mind, the saying/logic was "LT, if some sh** ever goes bad enough that YOU have to reach for your pistol, you're gonna wish you had a shotgun."

Except...

>And THAT is why swords and pistols became associated with officers/leadership positions.

Of course, a lot of other officers decided they DID want to just carry an M16 like everyone else, because in a Vietnam style of war snipers were a constant fear, and you didn't want to wear/carry anything that made you look like "someone special" from a distance.

TL;DR:

Sword on sword combat in the rifle/musket era seems like it would be a reasonably uncommon battlefield occurrence.

Foot officers really only carried swords as personal defense weapons. It wasn't their job to directly engage the enemy troops.

Thus, if an officer was in the thick of it, hacking away at the enemy, he was likely either

A. Leading his men on a charge through the enemy lines

B. (most likely) desperately trying to fend off the enemy that was overrunning his own position.

In either case, A or B, said officer was probably fighting some untold number of riflemen, NOT seeking out his equal opposite across the field for a gentlemen's sword duel. (which still isn't to say that officers didn't learn and train single sword combat, just saying it wouldn't be all that battlefield relevant)

Hmm... In a nice little "Hollywood got that right" moment - IIRC in the 1989 Civil War move "Glory" Matthew Broderick plays a Union officer, and there was a scene of him practicing with his sword. They did NOT show him practice man to man fencing against some fencing dummy. Instead they showed him on horseback, chopping the melons off the tops of a line of fenceposts at a gallop, as if riding through a crowd of enemy, taking out men on the ground. Nice job, director guy

One more note:

>And THAT is why swords became associated with officers/leadership positions.

That is why it was a big deal in the U.S. Marine Corps, for them to issue the "NCO Saber". The very existence and issuance of a sword for non-commissioned officers, i.e., Corporals and Sergeants, was an acknowledgement that the Marine Corps saw NCOs as unit leaders, with leadership duties and authorities. NCOs could be "in charge" of people and missions. This is a concept that wasn't common in a lot of services, and still isn't fully accepted in some militaries today. Which is to say, almost all militaries have ranks equivalent to Cpls and Sgts, but NOT all militaries have a culture of entrusting Cpls and Sgts with true managerial authorities and responsibilities)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but is it fair to say, when discussing bayonets before and maybe even up to the US Civil War, that we weren’t even fully graduated from seeing line infantry riflemen as “pikemen that could shoot”.

Also, if someone is in melee range with you, even without a bayo, a good muzzle thump to the face will back them off you enough to follow up with whatever next move is appropriate

We definitely learned it in the 2000s.

A few relevsnt points here.

1. They teach bayonet fighting but they don’t spend a ton of time on it.

2. It is still a useful and relevant skill. Reason being, if you can fight with your rifle WITH a bayonet, you can use the same techniques without one. How to se your rifle as a club/bo staff basically. While you are unlikely to find yourself in a full on fixed bayonet charge in the 21st century, you are not that unlikely to find yourself in a position where you need to beat someone down. (Hypothetical example, CQB in a house and some dude jumps on you or your rifle jams or whatever. You may only have enough time and space to buttstroke them to the face. Gotta have the muscle memory tucked away)

3. A GREAT point someone explained to me once. Pugil sticks isn’t all about bayonet technique. Its also about FIGHTING. Its a replacement for boxing.

They USED to have boxing in boot camp. It wasnt actually to teach you how to fight. It was because in a civilized society, a LOT of kids had just never been in a real fight. Throwing them in a boxing ring was a way to give them a taste of hitting someone and being hit.

Problem: Strapping the glives on and punching each other in the head is still dangerous, even in a controlled setting. A few recruits got badly hurt. Maybe died? SO, eventually pugil sticks became a good substitute. A less dangerous way to still throw recruits in the circle and tell them, “well there he is. What are you waiting for? Go get him! Attack!”

BONUS NOTE

One of the silliest and yet not at all silly lessons you got in boot - remember the “weapons of opportunity” class? For the test, they made you demonstrate some strikes with an etool (shovel). Then a tent stake. Thrn a rock.

It felt odd at the time. Like, a little specific isn’t it? Are we getting attacked at a camp site? Are we expecting that nothing but shovels and tent poles will be strewn around the battlefield?

BUT if you think about it, that class is actually pretty clever. Its not about those 3 objects.

Its about the idea that random objects in the world only really come in so many form factors.

So they make you practice :

Something thats like a rock

Something thats like a club

Something thats like a pointy stick

So one day in a real fight, when reach out and grab whatever object is within reach, you’ll have a basic idea of the best way to hold it, the best way to strike with it, and where on the other guy to aim for.

“One mind, any weapon” = you can pick up any ivject in the room and have a pretty good natural undertanding of how to attack someone with it.

FWIW, it IS actually a legit march, since at least the 1800s.

The pop culture associations happened later. The Brits and Ameticans still use it.

FFWD to 17:00 in this clip for example,

That Marines at the Marine Honor Guard barracks (8th&I) still use it to march the troops onto the parade deck for the evening parade. (And have for decades now at least)

https://youtu.be/_MaOtE4ZxCY

“Smother” isn’t really the right word IMO.

SOME times Christian customs were patterned in a way to make converting and assimilating non-Christians easier.

BUT

Other times it was basically the reverse.

Christians were not always the social majority after all.

So depending on the time frame, you’d have Christians assimilate to the society they were in, making their celebration fit within the larger social groups customs, so that they could fit in, or stay off the radar, or whatever else made it easier to practice their faith without drawing negative attention

If you read the BOOK Generation Kill, they have good sort of example of this. (The TV Show is good but incomplete. It doesn’t explain whats happening as well)

But basically, on the initial invasion of Iraq, 2003, it LOOKS LIKE a Marine Corps Force Recon unit is being used as a traditional maneuver element, and (per the perspective of the book) being put in some needlessly risky positions, like obvious ambush routes.

Later the book sort of explains that the main force was on a “speed run”.

The Iraqi army was large, but notoriously disorganized and bad at command and control, SO the Allied war plan was speed. Overwhelm the Iraqi army and move too quickly for them to organize and coordinate defensive lines. Thus taking most of the country without a fight, and minimizing casualties all around.

Problem: slowing doen was not an option. Getting bogged down = giving the Iraqis a chance to regroup and dig in, snd them having to slug it out more often.

(In the words of Gen Mattis himself, in the prebrief, moving slow was a good way to land in an unpleasant convo with him. See: the Colonel he fired on the spot for getting stuck at a bridge)

So, SPEED

They were worried the Iraqis had a bunch of delaying ambushes set up that would bog down the main force

The Recon units were (according to the book) actually decoys, meant to trick the Iraqis into springing their ambushes early, so that your main force could just bypass them.

Hell of a tough task for the recon guys, BUT the whole idea dis that your toughest, best trained guys are the ones able to

A - lay down enough orce snd firepower for them to bluff an opponent into thinking they are a full sized unit

B - go around finding and baiting ambush positions, and actually survive doing it.

Important to note: at least in less movile eras, the vanguard could presictably be expected to encounter the enemy FIRST.

Even on a single fixed battlefield, thus their unit position in a battle formation, front of the group, right end of the group.

This was considered a very prestigious position for that reason.

In a fixed battle, the vanguard position would logically go to the “best” of your line units to strike the first blows.

But who that best unit would be could change. It could be decided by the leader of battle for that battle. There are plenty of examples of Viking or Celtic clans agreeing to fight together, but bitterly arguing over whose troops would have “the honor” of leading the formation. (To the point that there were even fights over the right to lead the following days actual fight)

On the other hand, some leaders might make a specific unit their vanguard unit, and continually maintain that unit as a vanguard.

To describe that in modern military terms, you could have 1st infantry, 2nd infantry, 3rd infantry, and you COULD select the best one of them at any given time to be your vanguard,

OR

You could say,

“We have an Army Ranger regiment. They’re going to take vanguard, because that’s what they’re for. We specifically select, train, and equip them that unit to be our vanguard unit. Thats why the get extra pay and special uniform markings and the prestige of being on the first-string-all-star team”

Depends on time and task.

To steal from wikipedia here, an example of a Middle ages vanguard (literally “advance guard”) would have been the ubits tasked with first up duties. So..

Scouts

Engineers (to clear obstructions from the road)

And even some messengers/diplomats (to reach towns first and basically say “ok, the rest of the army is coming up, do you guys want to just surrender now? Or do we have to bother setting up the whole siege thing? Come on. Save us all a headache and just surrender eh? We’ll give you a nice deal)

It wasn’t really the rest of the world that started the One China Policy.

China demanded the OCP. Basically told the rest of the world there can be no diplomatic relations with any country that doesn’t accept China’s claim that Taiwan isn’t separate.

Single shot .22s are usually best suited for

Target practice

Very small game hunting. .22 is popular for camp/trail guns with the idea that they’re usually cheap, light, and easy to pack (as is a big brick worth if ammo) and then they make a decent option for rabbit, squirrel, etc

Now that I’ve had a chance to google a bit, my answer is:

Lincoln. And its NOT close.

If we’re talking just a pure, by the book l, round robin wrestling tourney, your order of finish is

Lincoln 1

Washington 2

Roosevelt 3

Yes they were all athletes and they all wrestled, but their degree of competent was pretty different. Teddy was an amateur. GW was well known wrestler. Lincoln was a highly renowned wrestler.

To make a very hypothetical comparison, just to use context we would understand today,

Teddy would be a guy that was on the college wrestling team.

GW would be a guy that was nationally ranked as a college wrestler. Went to the big tournaments and arguably makes “All-American”.

Lincoln would be the guy people buy a ticket to watch wrestle someone else in a promoted match. He would be true story, actually was the old carnival cliche of the guy that wins his match then calls an open challenge to the whole crowd, dares anyone who feels lucky to come climb in the ring

——

Now, thats just wrestling.

If we say who would win a plain old fight?

All in their prime? I’ll bet on Teddy.

Reason being, Best info I can find, Lincoln and GW were about 6’2”-6’4” and 175-185. Fit, lean, about even.

Teddy was only 5’10” but was likely the heaviest, and based on whst we know about his attention to sports and exercise, it wasnt soft weight. Dude knew the inside of a weight room.

So if we figure Teddy had the short end on reach but had the edge on pure ohysical strength, THEN we add skill.

His wrestling was the weakest if the three but he also boxed and later he did Judo and JiuJitsu reportedly up to 3 times a week.

(Caveat, he had one bad eye from a boxing injury and only picked up JJ after quitting bixinf because of the eye, but for the sale of argument we’re taking all three presidents at the sum of their prime ability)

So TL;DR: Teddy loses the wrestling tournament because hes the least skilled wrestler, but he wins plain out fight, because

Boxing+wrestling+judo/jiujitsu, he’s got more tools in his tool box, deliberate practice working against opponents of different sizes shapes, and a little more muscle on him. Closest thing to a modern mixed martial artist

Might as well throw G. Washington in the mix. Guy was quite the wrestler.

I wouldn't say "not known about" but Martin Luther must have been pretty hardcore.

Not because of any feeling on any religious findings one way or the other, but when you start calling out the church in the peak "burning people alive who call us out" era. I mean... ballsy

TIL meeting early tribes was like meeting Brenda from the church that introduces you to people then immediately whispers in your ear the gossip about they "mmhmm now that one ain't worth spit I'll tell you"

The crazy thing is, Harper lived up to his hype. If you just analyzed his stats, dudes production was wild.

Someone did a great pitch track analysis of the trends where they demonstrated down to the week, the moment when MLB pitcher realized, “ok we gotta pitch away from this guy”, and he was STILL hitting good production when pitchers starting throwing scared.

Its just that somehow he was the guy whose flashy hitting never quite got you the playoff runs you needed.

Meanwhile, good argument the slightly less sexy Rendon was that dude you need.

Very good on defense, and they called him Tony Two Bags for a reason. Homie could put up doubles damn near at will.

I will always cherish Howie's GS, almost as much as his WS clanger