Logistics and the Coming Year

XofDallas wrote:The thing that gets me about the analogies to WWI trench warfare is, that war was neither won nor lost in the trenches. The best that can be said about it is that the trench battles resulted in a stalemate that used up men and supplies.

Germany did not surrender by reason of those battles.

And that was true for both sides. All trench warfare did was run up horrific casualties.

(I've seen analysis elsewhere that WWI resulted in dramatic social changes after the war, because the people on both sides largely lost confidence in their leaders, due in large part to those horrific casualties.)

From everything I've gleaned, Germany surrendered because its Navy could not overcome the blockades imposed by the allies, and because the country and its people were systematically being denied access to food and supplies.

A good case has been made that Britain fought Germany precisely because of its growing navy.

Before the war, assumptions were that Britain and Germany would be allies. Their common enemy had historically been France, and there were blood ties between the British and German royal houses.

But it was also a period of colonial expansion, with various European powers seeking to establish additions to their empires in places like Africa. The British navy was the most powerful, but also had a lot more area it had to cover. The expanding German navy was a potential threat Britain could not ignore.

I could easily be wrong, but I believe the trench warfare that may (repeat, may) be the result of the current situation in the field east of Dohlar will not decide what happens in that country. That will be decided by whatever happens in Gorath, Silkiah and in the Gulf of Dohlar.

I agree. Among other things, I don't see a need for the EoC to invade Dohlor, and it won't want to do so if it doesn't have to. Cayleb and Sharleyan will recall all the fun of invading Corisande, and then trying to keep a lid on that pot till things settled down. Dohlor would be a lot worse. The EoC will be content with Rahnyld's head on a platter and Dohlor knocked out of the Jihad.

Among other things, Cayleb and Sharleyan recognize that at some point the Jihad is over, and then what do you do? How do you go about turning former enemies into at least trading partners, if not actual friends? The less stored up resentment and bad blood there is, the better. (The whole notion of honorable surrender, prisoner parole, and accepted rules of war can be viewed as mechanisms to aid the process of burying the hatchet after hostilities have ceased.)

I further believe the "fall" of Dohlar will be like the tipping over of the first domino, resulting in the slow, but inexorable and inevitable collapse of the Border States and of the remaining economy of Church-controlled territories.

That's an interesting point.

Dohlor's fall is likely to result in a political reorgnization, starting with Rahnyld no longer being King, a redefinition of its relationship with Mother Church, and the Inquisition told to go back to Zion.

Other nations might look at that example and start considering the advantages of doing likewise.

If it is helped along by the actions of the Charisan armed forces, so much the better.

And the EoC is doing it's best to provide that help.
_______
Dennis

If charis targets the key canal heads that are in the church logistic system, that could deeply harm the border states. If they can't supply the huge army they have positioned there, then that whole region might fall to the heretics.
Thirsk might not even be that concerned, they ain't dohlar responsibility.

I understand your analysis, but there are a few other points to consider.

What happened on the Western Front most definitely did have a significant impact on civilian and military morale. The French Army effectively collapsed in 1916 because of itnernal mutinies which were largely the result of the brutal casualties of trench warfare. Had the Brits not taken up the burden of the offensive and sucked up their own thousands upon thousands of casualties along the Somme, the war might have been decided right there (although, admittedly, it was not). The endless sea of German casualties never reached the polint of inspiring a general mutiny, but it very clearly eroded the confidence and the offensive spirit of the German army, in the minds of both its enlisted personnel and its officer corps. The rupture of the Western Front in 1918 when Ludendorff's "Peace Offensive" failed led directly to the collapse of the morale of the commanders --- especially Ludendorff -- and the announcement by the army high command that the war had been lost. Again, a direct consequence of events on the field of battle, not a direct consequence of the blockade. And while one can argue that the blockade ultimately destroyed civilian morale and willingness to support the war, denying the extent to which the deaths of fathers, sons, and brothers in the trenches contributed to that collapse is to fall into the trap of the statistician and forget the history of the human heart.

The case can certainly be made that it was ultimately the effects of the blockade that crushed the German economy and forced the Central Powers' surrender, but although I've been a navophile since the fifth grade, I have to argue that it would be a serious mistake to give the blockade full credit for what happened. The successive loss of Germany's allies --- mostly the result of events on the battlefield, not because of the blockade --- was a major factor in the outcome. The German realization that they literally could not break through on the Western Front and force a negotiated decision before the full weight of the American Army (and Fuller's "Plan XIX") was brought to bear upon them was the immediate and (I think) overwhelming factor in Germany's decision to seek terms in November of 1918. Had the war continued into 1919, and had Fuller's armored offensive come to fruition, backed by masses of fresh American manpower and the huge aerial superiority the Allies had amassed, Germany's military defeat in the field would have been conclusive and complete. The fact that Ludendorff and Hindenberg knew that and were looking desperately for a way out that put the blame for the surrender on someone else's shoulders was what led to the kaiser's abdication and the November ceasefire.

And that most definitely was a direct result of ground warfare --- trench and otherwise --- on the Western Front.

XofDallas wrote:The thing that gets me about the analogies to WWI trench warfare is, that war was neither won nor lost in the trenches. The best that can be said about it is that the trench battles resulted in a stalemate that used up men and supplies.

Germany did not surrender by reason of those battles.

From everything I've gleaned, Germany surrendered because its Navy could not overcome the blockades imposed by the allies, and because the country and its people were systematically being denied access to food and supplies.

I could easily be wrong, but I believe the trench warfare that may (repeat, may) be the result of the current situation in the field east of Dohlar will not decide what happens in that country. That will be decided by whatever happens in Gorath, Silkiah and in the Gulf of Dohlar.

I further believe the "fall" of Dohlar will be like the tipping over of the first domino, resulting in the slow, but inexorable and inevitable collapse of the Border States and of the remaining economy of Church-controlled territories.

If it is helped along by the actions of the Charisan armed forces, so much the better.

runsforcelery wrote:I understand your analysis, but there are a few other points to consider.

What happened on the Western Front most definitely did have a significant impact on civilian and military morale. The French Army effectively collapsed in 1916 because of itnernal mutinies which were largely the result of the brutal casualties of trench warfare. Had the Brits not taken up the burden of the offensive and sucked up their own thousands upon thousands of casualties along the Somme, the war might have been decided right there (although, admittedly, it was not). The endless sea of German casualties never reached the polint of inspiring a general mutiny, but it very clearly eroded the confidence and the offensive spirit of the German army, in the minds of both its enlisted personnel and its officer corps. The rupture of the Western Front in 1918 when Ludendorff's "Peace Offensive" failed led directly to the collapse of the morale of the commanders --- especially Ludendorff -- and the announcement by the army high command that the war had been lost. Again, a direct consequence of events on the field of battle, not a direct consequence of the blockade. And while one can argue that the blockade ultimately destroyed civilian morale and willingness to support the war, denying the extent to which the deaths of fathers, sons, and brothers in the trenches contributed to that collapse is to fall into the trap of the statistician and forget the history of the human heart.

The case can certainly be made that it was ultimately the effects of the blockade that crushed the German economy and forced the Central Powers' surrender, but although I've been a navophile since the fifth grade, I have to argue that it would be a serious mistake to give the blockade full credit for what happened. The successive loss of Germany's allies --- mostly the result of events on the battlefield, not because of the blockade --- was a major factor in the outcome. The German realization that they literally could not break through on the Western Front and force a negotiated decision before the full weight of the American Army (and Fuller's "Plan XIX") was brought to bear upon them was the immediate and (I think) overwhelming factor in Germany's decision to seek terms in November of 1918. Had the war continued into 1919, and had Fuller's armored offensive come to fruition, backed by masses of fresh American manpower and the huge aerial superiority the Allies had amassed, Germany's military defeat in the field would have been conclusive and complete. The fact that Ludendorff and Hindenberg knew that and were looking desperately for a way out that put the blame for the surrender on someone else's shoulders was what led to the kaiser's abdication and the November ceasefire.

And that most definitely was a direct result of ground warfare --- trench and otherwise --- on the Western Front.

Please don't forget to good ol' Bolsheviks - of course their influence over Germany wasn't direct, but the sucsess of Russian Revolution clearly influenced quite a lot of powers in Germany. After all, it was Germany, which was a birthplace of Marxism! And there were quite a lot of Marxists in Germany, who considered the Russian Revolution as a clear proof, that Marx prediction was essentialy right, and if even the proletariat of agrarian Russia rised, than the Germany must clearly follow.

Certainly bad morale played a part in things, and there were many sources of that bad morale. I refuse, however, to start parsing words and arguing whether the sources of a crushed morale constitute "direct" or "indirect" causes of Germany's surrender. Who wants to get sucked into that kind of quibbling?

My point was, the German surrender was not the result of their lines on the western front having been overrun, and the allies having taken Germany's capital, or something similar.

My ultimate point was, with respect to Dohlar, I don't believe its ultimate surrender/capitulation/whatever that renders it no longer a Church asset, will be the result of Rychter's lines being overrun in the east. Rather, I believe it will come as the result of internal strife, some of which will be caused by external pressures such as the presence of more ironclads in the Gulf, but more likely (in my opinion) resulting from Church actions that are no longer tolerable to key groups in Dohlar.

There's a saying in the military, "Don't give an order you know won't be obeyed." That's what I think ultimately will happen to the Church in Dohlar.

How'd this particular discussion point get into this thread anyway? It started with the assumption that Dohlar and its assets were no longer assets available to the Church, for whatever reason, and focused on the logistical consequences of such unavailability.

Oops... perhaps it was some of my own previous posts that got us off track. If so, you have my apologies.

XofDallas wrote:Certainly bad morale played a part in things, and there were many sources of that bad morale. I refuse, however, to start parsing words and arguing whether the sources of a crushed morale constitute "direct" or "indirect" causes of Germany's surrender. Who wants to get sucked into that kind of quibbling?

My point was, the German surrender was not the result of their lines on the western front having been overrun, and the allies having taken Germany's capital, or something similar.

My ultimate point was, with respect to Dohlar, I don't believe its ultimate surrender/capitulation/whatever that renders it no longer a Church asset, will be the result of Rychter's lines being overrun in the east. Rather, I believe it will come as the result of internal strife, some of which will be caused by external pressures such as the presence of more ironclads in the Gulf, but more likely (in my opinion) resulting from Church actions that are no longer tolerable to key groups in Dohlar.

There's a saying in the military, "Don't give an order you know won't be obeyed." That's what I think ultimately will happen to the Church in Dohlar.

How'd this particular discussion point get into this thread anyway? It started with the assumption that Dohlar and its assets were no longer assets available to the Church, for whatever reason, and focused on the logistical consequences of such unavailability.

Oops... perhaps it was some of my own previous posts that got us off track. If so, you have my apologies.

My own guess is that the order that won't be obeyed will be to transfer the sailors on the Prodigal Lass to Zion.

I agree that Dohlar will more likely be forced out of the war from the sea rather than by Hanth's campaign on land. But it is important for Hanth to keep up the pressure.

Don

-

SYED wrote:If charis targets the key canal heads that are in the church logistic system, that could deeply harm the border states. If they can't supply the huge army they have positioned there, then that whole region might fall to the heretics.
Thirsk might not even be that concerned, they ain't dohlar responsibility.

Whether Charis can do that will be an interesting question.

But I concur - it won't be Thirsk's problem. His concern will be Dohlor and what his navy can reach, and the canal heads Charis will target if they can do it will be in places Thirsk's navy couldn't get to if it wanted to.
______
Dennis

XofDallas wrote:My point was, the German surrender was not the result of their lines on the western front having been overrun, and the allies having taken Germany's capital, or something similar.

Correct. German surrender was based in the fact that defeat had become inevitable. The Triple Alliance did not have to invade Germany and capture Berlin to force a surrender.

My ultimate point was, with respect to Dohlar, I don't believe its ultimate surrender/capitulation/whatever that renders it no longer a Church asset, will be the result of Rychter's lines being overrun in the east.

I agree. Hanth needs to keep the pressure on and force Rychter steadily back, but I don't think he particularly wants to invade Dohlar. He does want to retake territory that formerly belonged to Siddarmark, but he and his Siddarmarkan allies will likely be content at stopping at the former Dohlar/Siddarmark border. He knew what he's engaged in now would be an arduous and messy affair - what he thought of as "a formal dance where both sides knew the steps" - because there wasn't any other way available to him to do it.

Rather, I believe it will come as the result of internal strife, some of which will be caused by external pressures such as the presence of more ironclads in the Gulf, but more likely (in my opinion) resulting from Church actions that are no longer tolerable to key groups in Dohlar.

There's a saying in the military, "Don't give an order you know won't be obeyed." That's what I think ultimately will happen to the Church in Dohlar.

Clyntahn is likely to try issuing such orders because it's unthinkable to him that they won't be obeyed.

But pressure is already building in Dohlar. The destruction of the Army of Justice with a good chunk of the Dohlaran army destroyed with it was a major morale blow. General Rychter's forced retreat before Earl Hanth's assault will be another. The fact that the Jihad is going very badly across the board will be a third, and the rumors about just how badly will have leaked out despite the best efforts of the Inquisition. I think most Dohlarans will have already gotten the idea that the Empire of Charis has never lied about anything it said in public, but the Inquisition does so routinely, so pious pronouncements from Zion will be taken with a hundredweight of salt.

An awful lot of folks loyal to the CoGA are beginning to wonder if God and the Archangels are really on their side, and drawing a distinction between Mother Church and Zhaspar Clyntahn. They may not say so out loud, but they're thinking it.

The question at the moment is whether an order to send the RDN personnel to Zion who failed to deliver the Charisian POWs to Clyntahn will be obeyed if Clyntahn issues it, and whether that will be the tipping point in Dohlar.
_______
Dennis

The thing is it won't just be the dohlar army, the church will force them to accept aid from the harchong forces they have available.
Charis should aim at claiming the canal upto the coastal city. Forcing the church to send supplies in directly.

Dilandu wrote:Please don't forget to good ol' Bolsheviks - of course their influence over Germany wasn't direct, but the sucsess of Russian Revolution clearly influenced quite a lot of powers in Germany. After all, it was Germany, which was a birthplace of Marxism! And there were quite a lot of Marxists in Germany, who considered the Russian Revolution as a clear proof, that Marx prediction was essentialy right, and if even the proletariat of agrarian Russia rised, than the Germany must clearly follow.

See Eric Hobsbawm's books The Age of Revolution 1789 - 1848, The Age of Capital 1848 - 1875, and The Age of Empire 1875 - 1914 for pertinent background.

A lot of the underpinnings of WWI were outgrowths of the French and American Revolutions. Both signaled seismic shifts in society, and both produced reactions among the European powers. The Reactionaries were fighting a read guard action, attempting to preserve the societies they grew up in, which were monarchies with a hereditary nobility ruling, a thin middle class, and commoners who knew their place and did as they were told by their betters. Those societies were already under pressure by the changes brought by the Industrial Revolution, ans industry and trade became driving forces, a middle class emerged, and people not of noble birth amassed great fortunes from industry and trade. Wealth was no longer solely derived from ownership of land.

Germany had a fair number of Marxists, but Mark thought developed nation like Germany was where Communism would develop. The notion is might take root in still agrarian and feudal societies like Russia was not one that occurred to most Marxists.

The Marxists were hardly the only ones the existing ruling classes worried about. Socialists were seen as a greater threat, as were major industries not under the control of the existing nobility, with industrialists amassing fortunes that exceeded the nobles, and a middle class that increasingly expected a voice in how things were run. Religion was also in that mix, with Catholic versus Protestant one of the majot cleavages.

(See the fun Sharleyan is having in Chisholm as the nobility begins to grasp just what the changes she and Cayleb are pushing hard in Chisholm will do to the existing social arrangements and their own wealth, power, and influence. The smarter ones will climb on board, but many will feel threatened and offended by the changes, and will try to turn back the clock. As far as they're concerned, the good old days when the great nobles really ran things and the monarch was a figurehead was the way God and the Archangels intended things to be, and they were specially favored and intended to lead because they were great nobles.)

The sorts of issues Sharleyan and Cayleb are attempting to sort out are the leading edge of changes that will affect all of Safehold as the traditional social and political organization increasing breaks down under the strains the Jihad is producing.
_______
Dennis