War you would have wanted to be in

Another charming aspect of the First World War was the phenomenon known as the "Pals Battalions". Recruited from a small area, then trained and deployed together to maximise the cohesion and morale benefits. One such unit was the 11th bn, East Lancashire Regiment, aka the Accrington Pals. They first saw action on 1st July 1916, the opening day of the Somme offensive.

Accrington Pals

At 7.30am, the bombardment was lifted from the German front line and the leading waves rose and walked in line towards the German positions. Machine gun- and rifle fire immediately tore into the advancing lines of infantry. By 8am, the battle for Serre was effectively over.

"The History of the East Lancashire Regiment in the Great War" records that out of some 720 Accrington Pals who took part in the attack, 584 were killed, wounded or missing.

The initial accounts of success on the Somme, including an erroneous report of the capture of Serre, soon gave way to pages filled with photographs of the killed, wounded and missing. Few, if any, of the town's population could have been untouched by the tragedy. Percy Holmes, the brother of an original Pal, recalled "I remember when the news came through to Accrington that the Pals had been wiped out. I don't think there was a street in Accrington and district that didn't have their blinds drawn, and the bell at Christ Church tolled all the day."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Ugh. If there was any war that I could say I wouldn't have wanted to be a part of it would probably be WW1, Being an Infantry Soldier it would almost seem like Walking into a meat-grinder. One of the most Horrible and ignoble wars the has ever scarred our planet.

---

The most horible war in military sense... WW2 cant top that. but on human/civilian scale definitly ww2

ww1 was crazy... a total waste of lives and talent. just because some stupid generals thought they could repeat waterloo and win a war in one battle

Quote:

---

ww1 was crazy... a total waste of lives and talent. just because some stupid generals thought they could repeat waterloo and win a war in one battle

---

I don't think's as simple as that. Nor that a major war could really be avoided with the political situation in which Europe was. Although it could possibly have been a smaller and less bloody war if things had happened differently.

oh no... that is not what i'm saying. war in europe at that time was almost inevatable... though without versailles ww2 could be avoided.

but globally watched, just the war it was definitly a waste of talent and lives and sadly also a lesson for generations to come

Back to the original query.

1st option: World War One Flier, preferably scouts.

2nd option: Gunnery officer on an old rag-wagon frigate, c. 1800.

Age of Sail navies (also the merchant, but particularly the military) almost without exception had really lousy living conditions on their ships. Plus the actual sea battles were pure splatter movie; the ships' hulls themselves could take virtually infinite amounts of fire without being actually destroyed (things got different if fires broke out or the powder magazine got hit, naturally), but a sustained battle tended to turn the crowded gun decks in particular into gory, claustrophobic slaughterhouses quite literally swimming with blood, guts and other loose bits of human anatomy. Heck, the British made it their paradigm tactic to get in close and blast the enemy hull to kill the crew...

Frankly, I wouldn't wish that smelly horror on my worst enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Age of Sail navies (also the merchant, but particularly the military) almost without exception had really lousy living conditions on their ships. Plus the actual sea battles were pure splatter movie; the ships' hulls themselves could take virtually infinite amounts of fire without being actually destroyed (things got different if fires broke out or the powder magazine got hit, naturally), but a sustained battle tended to turn the crowded gun decks in particular into gory, claustrophobic slaughterhouses quite literally swimming with blood, guts and other loose bits of human anatomy. Heck, the British made it their paradigm tactic to get in close and blast the enemy hull to kill the crew...

Frankly, I wouldn't wish that smelly horror on my worst enemy.

---

oh yeah, truly one of the most disgusting lifestyles. I'm very surprised all the world's navies during that time era werent permanently plagued with numerous diseases. Those who survived them had guts... then again most of the time they didn't have much of a choice in the matter.

Still, I wouldn't mind visiting one of those ships and even spending some time looking at what people who were in there back then lived like.

French Navy during Napoleon's time really could've used help.

Honestly, none of them. If absolutely necessary, well, whenever the invaders are advancing along my street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derfasciti

oh yeah, truly one of the most disgusting lifestyles. I'm very surprised all the world's navies during that time era werent permanently plagued with numerous diseases. Those who survived them had guts... then again most of the time they didn't have much of a choice in the matter.

Still, I wouldn't mind visiting one of those ships and even spending some time looking at what people who were in there back then lived like.

French Navy during Napoleon's time really could've used help.

---

during that time almost al battlefields were gory filled with human anatomy... they just stood infront of each other and got hit by whatever the enemy possessed, followed by a cav charge here and there.

For all the admitted hardships associated with naval life in that era -- and please remember I specified a time after the development of anti-scorbutic doctrines -- how was the life of the sailor noticeably more vile than that of a landsman?

The ships were as clean or cleaner than most towns, the food more consistent, etc. Dangerous? Yes. But do you think a cropper in Shropshire had it easy? Or that homesteading in Appalachia was peaceful and comfortable? I'd take life on a frigate over life in a London rookery of that era in a hot minute.

Out of curiosity Seamus , any particular reason why you opt for frigate rather than something bigger or smaller ?
It wouldn't be money by any chance :inquisitive:

Prizemoney would certainly be a good incentive to sail on frigates. But also, frigates were far less crowded than the big lineships. So it wouldn't be as bad. Further the frigates had that nice size where it was big enough to not feel small, but small enough not to be too big for the waves (and thus creating really unpleasant situations in bad weather), and finally it was a much better seagoing type than the lineships, creating a much better feeling overall.

If I had to choose I would say a frigate, or perhaps a corvette. A brig would be the smallest I would go for, and a large frigate (such as the Bonhomme Richard) the largest. Never a lineship.

Kraxis has the right of it. I'd add that frigates were more likely to make cruises -- sometimes to interesting places, and somewhat less likely to be involved in sitting monotonously on someone's "front porch" for 8 months at a stretch.

Besides, given the state of naval pay in that era, a bit of well-invested prize money would be vital to a goodly retirement.

Prizemoney would certainly be a good incentive to sail on frigates.
yep , if the agents actually delivered ,whichwas not always the case


But Seamus , that sitting on someones porch for 8 months was the reason frigates were more likely to obtain prizes .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But Seamus , that sitting on someones porch for 8 months was the reason frigates were more likely to obtain prizes .

---

Absolutely. And strategically vital -- I've read a bit of Mahan and agree. I just think it wasn't much blinkin' fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Prizemoney would certainly be a good incentive to sail on frigates.
yep , if the agents actually delivered ,whichwas not always the case.

---

Of course not, but you got a whole lot more prizemoney by getting actual prizes than sitting outside French ports all year round, maintaining a blockade.
It is like the lottery, you might not win, but you certainly don't win unless you play.

And even if I didn't get any prizes, I would say that sailing around the Caribbean (for instance) would be a whole lot more fun than sitting outside some obscure port in Europe in sleet and rain.

Of course not, but you got a whole lot more prizemoney by getting actual prizes than sitting outside French ports all year round, maintaining a blockade.

It was while sitting outside ports maintaining blockades that large numbers of ships were siezed .

I would say that sailing around the Caribbean (for instance) would be a whole lot more fun than sitting outside some obscure port in Europe in sleet and rain.
Yep , yellow jack can be fun .
Alternatively you could try the orient . Batavia was a popular spot for ships crews to get over the strains of the voyage and recover their health , though it had strange recuprative qualities which could decimate entire crews in very short order .
Nice exotic locations have nice exotic diseases .

In the Thirty Years War, fighting alongside with Gustav II Adolph of Sweden or Christian IV of Denmark.

Well, three options.

First. In the battle of Adrianople (1205) between the Bulgarians (with Cuman allies) and the Crusaders won by the Bulgarians leaded by their king ( however he claimed he was tzar (emperor) and he had some right) Kaloyan.

Second. A clergyman in the Spanish Conquest. I think it was safe but position with high influence at that time. In addition I have some passion for Spanish history esp. at XI - XVIII century although I do not approve what happened to the Indians ( well, I should admit most of them died of European diseases; the legends about Spanish cruelty was exaggerated to some extend(but had some truth in it; unfortunately it is the dark side of the European glory)).

Third. A landlord during the period of Sengoku (the Period of the Warring States) (XV- XVI century) in Japan.

i would definitly not in any time wanted to be a chinese soldier. and most certainly not in ww2 from 1937-1945, neither fighting or serving as prisoner

WWII started in 1939 m8

He's correct though, Japan invaded China after WWI and started an actual war with it in '37.

I'd rather stay out of any wars, but officer on a British frigate in napoleonic times wouldn't be too bad. Or being part of steppe-armies has always fascinated me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

He's correct though, Japan invaded China after WWI and started an actual war with it in '37.

---

doesn't matter, WWII started in 1939, even tho some countries started fighting earlier.

It all depends on where you went to school actually, I bet the Japanese and Chinese learn that it started in 1937. Be more tolerant of other peoples ideas, there isn't a definate correct answer for when WWII started when you're talking to people on an international forum.

Yeah I'm an exchange student so I am probably a bit more into that sort of tolerance as I used to be, but it is good to keep that sort of thing in mind. My history teacher here in Germany brought "the American policy of Roll Back" which I had never heard of back in the states, but it's okay because I understood him.

thanks Uesugi, you said what i wanted to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

It all depends on where you went to school actually, I bet the Japanese and Chinese learn that it started in 1937. Be more tolerant of other peoples ideas, there isn't a definate correct answer for when WWII started when you're talking to people on an international forum.

---

No m8, we didn't speak of WORLD WAR, till the war in Europe began. Till Germany invaded Poland. Till the whole of Europe (the whole important part, Germany, England, Russia, France) were at war. Before that no-one ever spook of the World War, as it was just 2 countries fighting.
Italy already fought in Africa in the mid-Thirties, do we call that World War?
No, WORLD WAR is a term, tho introduced after the war, it strictly used.

My knowledge of Italy's foray into Ethiopia is very limited, but I do not think that conflict proved to be large enough or central enough to the Second World War to even be debated as the beginning. Now the war did turn into a world war when Germany invaded Poland, but the Pacific Theater did prove to be an extremely important element of the war and I would say that it is fair to argue that the Second World War began when Japan invaded China. I would not say that it was a world war at that point though.

The only real problem I have with your argument is that you seem to think you have to be right and that there is no room for other points of view. That is not the case, for Japan and China WWII definately began far earlier than 1939 and the enthusiasm with which you try to deny that merely proves how Euro-centric your view of WWII (and perhaps more) is.

Yeah I know the fighting there started before 1939. If I'm correct it even started before 1937. But this war too was not centralized enough. You have to see it like this. In the Pacific, the only "free countries" were China and Japan (and Australia some further south, but that was still half a colony). Japan did not attack the, who in the Europe were known as, allies till 1941. At that point Japan joined the World War.
The war in China is know as the Sino-Japanese War from 1937 to 1945. It has a name of his own. And so has the war in the entire Pacific theatre.

I would not want to be in any war [well maybe the one in "Mars Attacks!", as aliens were beaten there by country music...yeah]....Any other war: Me is first to leave the area hopefully with all the beloved ones.

:captain:

I would not know what I would do, if i were forced to defend myself or somebody close in a war. And I do not consider myself a coward, b/c when it comes to fights in clubs, pubs etc. I usually try to calm things down and get the combatants apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De' Medici

In the Thirty Years War, fighting alongside with Gustav II Adolph of Sweden or Christian IV of Denmark.

---

What, you fancy death by starvation, disease and/or infected wounds ? Soldiers those days lived every day like it was their last for a reason; for the rank and file retirement really wasn't something to worry about.

The aristocracy who formed the officer corps had it a bit easier, but even then the turnover was high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

And even if I didn't get any prizes, I would say that sailing around the Caribbean (for instance) would be a whole lot more fun than sitting outside some obscure port in Europe in sleet and rain.

---

It'd also mean spending inordinate amounts of time at sea with a shipful of men without much any hygiene - sense or facilities - to speak of. And the issues with what could happen with food and water on long trips, especially if the weather decided to turn uncooperative. And the hideous discipline the English navy in particular was infamous for.

Still, I'll agree that sailing around in a small fast all-purpose ship like a frigate ought to beat duty in the ships of the line. Those things were the ones that got to bear the brunt of the dying in major battles.