HardThrasher
Published 16 Feb 2025The Battle of Kohima.
Please consider donations of any size to the Burma Star Memorial Fund who aim to ensure remembrance of those who fought with, in and against 14th Army 1941–1945 — https://burmastarmemorial.org/
(more…)
February 17, 2025
Forgotten War Ep 9 – Kohima – Hell in the Hills
QotD: Decisive factors in the Roman victory over the Seleucids
Zooming out even further, why Roman victory in the Roman-Seleucid War? I think there are a few clear factors here.
Ironically for a post covering land battles, the most important factor may be naval: Rome’s superior naval resources (and better naval allies), which gave the Romans an enormous operational advantage against Antiochus. In the initial phase, the Romans could get more troops to Greece than the king could, while further on, Roman naval supremacy allowed Roman armies to operate in Anatolia in force (while Antiochus, even had he won in Greece, had no hope of operating in Italy). Neutralizing Antiochus’ navy both opened up options for the Romans and closed down options for Antiochus, setting the conditions for Roman victory. It would have also neutered any Roman defeat. If Antiochus wins at Magnesia, he cannot then immediately go on the offensive, after all: he has merely bought perhaps a year or two of time to rebuild his navy and try to contest the Aegean again. Given the astounding naval mobilizations Rome had shown itself capable of in the third century, one cannot imagine Antiochus was likely to win that contest.
Meanwhile, the Romans had better allies, in part as a consequence of the Romans being better at getting allies. The Romans benefit substantially from allied Achaean, Pergamese and Rhodian ships and troops, as well as support from the now-humbled Philip V of Macedon and even supplies and auxiliaries from Numidia and Carthage. Alliance-management is a fairly consistent Roman strength and it shows here. It certainly seems to help that Roman protestations that they had little interest in a permanent presence in Greece seem to have been somewhat true; Rome won’t set up a permanent provincia in Macedonia until 146 (though the Romans do expect their influence to predominate before then). By contrast, Antiochus III, clearly bent on rebuilding Alexander’s empire, was a more obvious threat to the long-term independence and autonomy of Greek states like the Pergamum or Rhodes.
Finally, there is the remarkable Seleucid glass jaw. The Romans, after all, sustained a defeat very much like Magnesia against Hannibal in 216 (the Battle of Cannae) and kept fighting. By contrast, Antiochus is forced into a humiliating peace after Magnesia, in which he cedes all of Anatolia, gives up any kind of navy and is forced to pay a crippling financial indemnity which will fatally undermine the reign of his successor and son Seleucus IV (leading to his assassination in 175, leading to yet further Seleucid weakness). Part of this glass jaw may have been political: after Magnesia, Antiochus’ own aristocrats seem pretty well done with their king’s adventurism against Rome.
But at the same time, some of it was clearly military. Antiochus didn’t have a second army to fall back on and Magnesia represented essentially a peak “all-call” Seleucid mobilization. A similar defeat at Raphia had forced a similarly unfavorable peace earlier in his reign, after all. Part of the problem, I would argue, is that the Seleucids needed their army for more than just war: they needed it to enforce taxation and tribute on their own recalcitrant subjects. As a result, no Seleucid king could afford to “go for broke” the way the Roman Republic could, nor could the Seleucids ever fully mobilize the massive population of their realm. The very nature of the Hellenistic kingdom’s ethnic hierarchy made fully tapping the potential resources of the kingdom impossible.
As a result, while Antiochus III was not an incompetent general, he ruled a deceptively weak giant. Massive revenues were offset by equally massive security obligations and the Seleucids seem to have been perenially cash strapped (with a nasty habit of looting temples to make up for it). The very nature of the Seleucid Empire – like the Ptolemaic one – as an ethnic empire where Macedonians ruled and non-Macedonians were ruled kept Antiochus from being able to fully mobilize his subjects. It may also explain why so many of those light infantry auxiliaries seem to have run off without much of a fight. Eumenes and his Pergamese troops fought for their independence, the Romans for the greater glory of Rome and the socii for their own status and loot within the Roman system, but what could Antiochus offer a subjected Carian or Cilician except a paycheck and a future of continued subjugation? That’s not much to die for.
Bret Devereaux, “Collections: Phalanx’s Twilight, Legion’s Triumph, Part IVb: Antiochus III”, A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry, 2024-04-05.
February 16, 2025
Bismarck’s Final Battle – The Bismarck Part 4
World War Two
Published 15 Feb 2025It is the end for the Bismarck; crippled by airstrikes, there is no hope of salvation. As the British battleships close in, Admiral Gunter Lutjens gives a final Sieg Heil, readies his guns, and prepares to meet his destiny.
(more…)
February 13, 2025
From Ruins to Recovery: The Fight to Rebuild – W2W 004
TimeGhost History
Published 12 Feb 2025In 1946, the world is struggling to rebuild from the devastation of WWII. Cities lie in ruins, economies are shattered, and millions are displaced. As the old powers of Britain and France weaken, the rising superpowers — the U.S. and USSR — compete to shape the new world order. Will reconstruction lead to stability, or is the world heading for another conflict?
(more…)
February 12, 2025
Poilievre’s outlined plan for the Canadian Arctic gets the CDR Salamander seal of approval
Although most of the attention is on the still ongoing Trump tariff tantrum, there is still the required battle-space preparations going on for the next federal election. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre discussed his proposals for improving national security in the Arctic, and CDR Salamander is enthusiastic:

Pierre and Ana Poilievre at a Conservative leadership rally, 21 April, 2022.
Photo by Wikipageedittor099 via Wikimedia Commons.
… here are the highlights as I see them.
- Canada’s Arctic is under threat. 75% of Canada’s coastline is in the far north, and 40% of her landmass. Canada needs to become self-sufficient.
- In the fall of 2022, the Canadian military found Chinese monitoring buoys in the Arctic.
- A Royal Canadian Navy frigate shadowed a Chinese research vessel in the Bering Strait off Alaska last year (thank you RCN friends, we don’t have any frigates nor naval bases in Alaska because … our leaders don’t understand much outside Norfolk, San Diego, or the Potomac).
- Russia is building new bases and infrastructure in the Arctic.
- Canada will take back control of Canadian waters, sky, and land.
- The Canadian military today is weakened and her allies no longer respects her.
- Canada does not have a permanent military presence in the Arctic.
- When Prime Minister, he will increase Canadian forces by:
– Doubling the size of the Canadian Rangers from 2,000 to 4,000 Rangers.
– Acquire two additional polar heavy icebreakers for the Royal Canadian Navy by 2029 on top of the two current icebreakers being built for the Canadian Coast Guard.
– Will build Canada’s first permanent Arctic military base since the Cold War. It will be CFB Iqaluit. 100% of the cost of the base will come out of the Canadian foreign aid budget and will be up and running within two years of Poilievre becoming Prime Minister.
– New submarines.
- Bringing wasted foreign aid back to Canada.
- If Canada wants to be a sovereign, self-reliant nation, it must take control of their north, secure its borders, and stand on its own two feet.
- Canada cannot count on the Americans to do it for them.
Further on in this speech, Poilievre speaks out strongly against some of the statements of President Trump and his administration, and that is fine for me. Were I Canadian, I would say very similar things. This is OK. Friends can have disagreements now and then, but for every one item that causes friction, we will always have nine items that bring us together.
It’s all good.
The Korean War 034 – Four Chinese Armies Target Wonju – February 11, 1951
The Korean War by Indy Neidell
Published 11 Feb 2025The anticipated Chinese counterattack begins to take shape. Chinese commander Peng Dehuai and US 8th Army Commander Matt Ridgway both know the significance of what comes next. These next days will decide the future of the Korean Peninsula. UN troops dig in, and Chinese troops prepare to advance. The time is now, and the stakes have never been higher.
(more…)
February 10, 2025
The Swordfish Strike! – The Bismarck Part 3
World War Two
Published 9 Feb 2025Reeling from the loss of HMS Hood, the Royal Navy chases Bismarck across the Atlantic Ocean. Battleships and search planes comb the vast expanses of water. Finally, they spot the German behemoth. It’s time to unleash the Swordfish!
(more…)
QotD: The Roman Republic versus the heirs of Alexander the Great
Last time, we finished our look at the third-century successes of the phalanx with the career of Pyrrhus of Epirus, concluding that even when handled very well with a very capable body of troops, Hellenistic armies struggled to achieve the kind of decisive victories they needed against the Romans to achieve strategic objectives. Instead, Pyrrhus was able to achieve a set of indecisive victories (and a draw), which was simply not anywhere close to enough in view of the tremendous strategic depth of Rome.
Well, I hope you got your fill of Hellenistic armies winning battles because it is all downhill from here (even when we’re fighting uphill). For the first half of the second century, from 200 to 168, the Romans achieve an astounding series of lopsided victories against both (Antigonid) Macedonian and Seleucid Hellenistic armies, while simultaneously reducing several other major players (Pergamon, Egypt) to client states. And unlike Pyrrhus, the Romans are in a position to “convert” on each victory, successfully achieving their strategic objectives. It was this string of victories, so shocking in the Greek world, that prompted Polybius to write his own history, covering the period from 264 to 146 to try to explain what the heck happened (much of that history is lost, but Polybius opens by suggesting that anyone paying attention to the First Punic War (264-241) ought to have seen this coming).
That said, this series of victories is complex. Of the five major engagements (The River Aous, Cynoscephalae, Thermopylae, Magnesia, and Pydna) Rome commandingly wins all of them, but each battle is strange in its own way. So we’re going to look at each battle and also take a chance to lay out a bit of the broader campaigns, asking at each stage why does Rome win here? Both in the tactical sense (why do they win the battle) and also in the strategic sense (why do they win the war).
We’re going to start with the war that brought Rome truly into the political battle royale of the Eastern Mediterranean, the Second Macedonian War (200-196). Rome was acting, in essence, as an interloper in long-running conflicts between the various successor dynasties of Alexander the Great as well as smaller Greek states caught in the middle of these larger brawling empires. Briefly, the major players are the Ptolemaic Dynasty, in Egypt (the richest state), the Seleucid Dynasty out of Syria and Mesopotamia (the largest state) and the Antigonid Kingdom in Macedonia (the smallest and weakest state, but punching above its weight with the best man-for-man army). The minor but significant players are the Attalid dynasty in Pergamon, a mid-sized Hellenistic power trapped between the ambitions of the big players, two broad alliances of Greek poleis in the Greek mainland the Aetolian and Achaean Leagues, and finally a few freewheeling poleis, notably Athens and Rhodes. The large states are trying to dominate the system, the small states trying to retain their independence and everyone is about to get rolled by the Romans.
Bret Devereaux, “Collections: Phalanx’s Twilight, Legion’s Triumph, Part IVa: Philip V”, A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry, 2024-03-15.
February 8, 2025
Hungarian WWII Rifles (35M, 43M, G98/40)
Forgotten Weapons
Published 11 Jun 2015After the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Hungarian army was armed primarily with Steyr M95 straight-pull rifles and carbines, chambered for the 8x56mm rimmed cartridge. In 1935 they adopted a new Mannlicher turnbolt rifle, the 35M, which used the same 8x56R ammunition and en bloc clips. The rifle was modified in 1940 for production to German specifications as the Gewehr 98/40 (including conversion to 8×57 rimless ammunition and a stripper-clip-fed box magazine). The resulting rifle was good enough that it was adopted by Hungary as well in 1943 as the 43M.
February 6, 2025
Forgotten War Ep 8 – Imphal 44 Pt2 – Edge of Chaos
HardThrasher
Published 4 Feb 2025A video discussing the Battles of Imphal and Kohima at the start of 1944.
Please consider donations of any size to the Burma Star Memorial Fund who aim to ensure remembrance of those who fought with, in and against 14th Army 1941–1945 — https://burmastarmemorial.org/
(more…)
Historian Answers Google’s Most Popular Questions About Ancient Greek Warfare
History Hit
Published 2 Oct 2024Was the Trojan War real? Did the Greeks dig ditches? Why did the Greeks fight the Persians?
Ancient Greek historian Roel Konijnendijk Answers Google’s Most Popular Questions About Ancient Greek Warfare.
00:00 Intro
00:46 Who did the Greeks fight?
01:47 How did the Greeks fight?
02:59 What weapons did the Greeks fight with?
04:25 Did the Greeks fight on chariots?
05:08 Did the Greeks have cavalries?
06:51 Did the Greeks have navies?
08:24 Did the Greeks do sieges?
09:46 Did the Greeks dig ditches?
10:47 Who was the best Greek warrior?
12:05 Was the Trojan War real?
14:04 Who started the trojan war?
15:34 Who was Helen of troy?
16:15 Did the gods fight in the trojan war?
17:02 Which heroes fought in the trojan war?
18:21 What was the trojan horse?
19:16 Who won the trojan war?
20:20 Why was the Trojan war important?
21:28 Why did the Greeks fight the Persians?
23:09 Where was the Persian war?
24:59 Who won the Persian war?
26:50 Why was the Persian war important?
28:26 Did the Spartans fight the Athenians?
28:58 Why was it called the Peloponnesian war?
29:50 Who won the Peloponnesian war?
31:51 What happened after the Peloponnesian war?
(more…)
February 5, 2025
The Korean War 033 – A Deadly Game: China & US Both Attack! – February 4, 1951
The Korean War by Indy Neidell
Published 4 Feb 2025The fate of the Korean Peninsula stands on a knife edge as Peng Dehuai’s mighty armies gear up to make their move. The US 8th Army continues to push towards Seoul, now backed up by Edward Almond’s 10th Corps to the east. Violent clashes towards the end of the week confirm what both sides already suspect: a great battle is coming, and in this deadly game of thrust and riposte, there can be but one victor.
Chapters
00:00 Intro
00:47 Recap
01:02 Thunderbolt Continued
06:47 All’s Well That Ends Well
11:38 The Twin Tunnels
15:49 Conclusion
(more…)
February 4, 2025
The FN C1A1 – Workhorse of the Cold War Canadian Army
On Target Canada
Published 20 Jan 2020Time to get a closer look at a rifle I have spent a lot of time with in the past. The FN C1A1, used by the Canadian Army from the mid 1950s to the late 1980s.
Enjoy!
(more…)
February 3, 2025
A New World Order – War 2 War 01 – Q4 1945
TimeGhost History
Published 1 Feb 2025World War Two is over. The anti-Axis alliance has promised that their victory shall usher in a time of peace, stability, and freedom. They have pledged to uphold new values of humanity, tolerance, solidarity, and the right to self determination. Have they spoken the truth or has it been a string of lies all along?
(more…)
Roman Senior Army Officers and their careers
Adrian Goldsworthy. Historian and Novelist
Published 1 Oct 2024Today’s question is about the career paths for senatorial and equestrian officers in the Roman army. This is a big theme, so take this as an introduction. We will return to this topic in the future.




