Feral Jundi

Monday, August 1, 2011

History: The Flying Tigers–America’s Celebrated PMC During World War Two

Filed under: Aviation,History — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 5:01 PM

This is a supplement to the post on Claire Chennault and it gives you a real feel for what I am talking about here. Back then, this PMC called the Flying Tigers or AVG were heroes in the war, and produced such folks like Pappy Boyington who went on to lead the Black Sheep squadron in the Marines. It is also interesting to note that Chennault created the company called Civil Air Transport, and later converted into Air America during the Vietnam War. Both companies were involved in many cold war related conflicts since WW2. –Matt

 

Monday, July 25, 2011

History: The Privateers Of The Texas Revolution

This is some cool history that yet again, you just don’t hear about. I had no idea about this history, and after reading about it, I tried to collect as much as I could that talked about this little known subject. Just to set this up, here is an excerpt from wikipedia about what led up to this revolution or war of independence between Texas settlers and Mexico:

The Texas Revolution or Texas War of Independence was a military conflict between Mexico and settlers in the Texas portion of the Mexican state Coahuila y Tejas. The war lasted from October 2, 1835 to April 21, 1836. However, a war at sea between Mexico and Texas would continue into the 1840s. Animosity between the Mexican government and the American settlers in Texas, as well as many Texas residents of Mexican ancestry, began with the Siete Leyes of 1835, when Mexican President and General Antonio López de Santa Anna abolished the federal Constitution of 1824 and proclaimed the more centralizing 1835 constitution in its place.
The new laws were unpopular throughout Mexico, leading to violence in several states. War began in Texas on October 2, 1835, with the Battle of Gonzales. Early Texian Army successes at La Bahia and San Antonio were soon met with crushing defeat at the same locations a few months later. The war ended at the Battle of San Jacinto where General Sam Houston led the Texian Army to victory over a portion of the Mexican Army under Santa Anna, who was captured shortly after the battle. The conclusion of the war resulted in the creation of the Republic of Texas in 1836.

So I guess the thing that I wanted talk about with this particular piece of history, is the fact that privateering was the first act of the provisional government of Texas. They did not have a navy, so privateers was a quick and easy want to fire up a navy and put some money into the treasury by means of a prize court.  Unfortunately at that time, Mexican commerce in the Gulf of Mexico was not that great, and thus a privateer industry or offense industry did not have the necessary elements to flourish.

It is also important to note that if Texas was not part of the US at the time, then this would be an example of another ‘country’ using the LoM.  I could be wrong there, but I just do not know how to legally classify Texas at that time period?  But either way, this is an example of a fledgling and resource strapped government, firing up the Letter of Marque as just one tool in their fight.

On a side note, the provisional government also handed out land to any soldiers who would fight for Texas Independence.  This is an interesting concept, and I wonder if Somalia could do something similar?  Hell, the TFG could fire up the LoM as well, and grant these licenses to foreign or local privateers to go after pirates on water and land.  Meaning, if a company could seize by force the wealth of the pirate investors or pirates themselves, then that company would split that prize with the TFG.  That puts money into the treasury of the TFG, it provides financial incentive to the privateer companies,  and it creates an offense industry that profits from piracy’s destruction. To really fire it up, they could offer pirates amnesty if they become privateers for the government. Call it the Woodes Rogers solution. lol.

Either way, check it out and let me know what you think.  I think that flag below would be a cool morale patch for today’s maritime security bunch too.  And I know that Texas is not ‘legally’ authorized to grant LoM’s at this present time, but imagine if they were? That they created an offense industry to deal with the asset rich cartels that operate along the borders? Now that would be something else. –Matt 

 

The flag that Texas Privateers were required to fly on their vessels.

Texas Privateers

(From the Texas State Library and Archives Commission)
Revolution broke out in earnest in Texas in October 1835 with the seizure of the Mexican cannon at Gonzales and the beginning of the Siege of Bexar. As these events unfolded, the Consultation, the first revolutionary assembly of Texas, came together in San Felipe on November 3, 1835. One of its first acts was to consider the protection of the Texas coast. It was impossible to create a Navy overnight, so the Texans adopted the time-honored practice of issuing letters of marque and reprisal to privateers. These privately owned war ships would protect the coast, harass Mexican shipping, and bring in prizes that could be auctioned off, with part of the proceeds going into the public treasury.
Texas issued a total of six letters of marque to privateers, including the San Felipe, the William Robbins, the Terrible, the Thomas Toby, the Flash, and the Ocean. Flying the “1824” Texas Revolutionary flag, these ships not only patrolled the Gulf, but also pursued Mexican shipping on the high seas. The Thomas Toby was the outstanding privateer of the group, capturing several Mexican vessels and bringing them back to be adjudicated and their contents sold. Overall, though, the privateering effort was disappointing for Texas. Mexican shipping was not considered rich trade, so relatively few privateers were willing to take the risk.

(more…)

Monday, July 4, 2011

Letter Of Marque: Privateer Days…..A Canadian Holiday

Filed under: Canada,History,Letter Of Marque — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 4:32 PM

What I wanted to do here is show a little history that folks in the US were probably not aware of. Especially during our celebration of Independence Day. In this town in Canada, they still celebrate the authorization (Letter of Marque) by the British to attack American privateers. To them, American privateers and the Continental Navy were the enemy and this was that town’s solution and savior. The Americans were also pirates in their eyes, and they felt totally justified to use their legalized privateers to attack and defend against such an enemy. (the Continental Navy could take prizes as well)

But it also indicates the effectiveness of privateering back then. This type of warfare did extreme damage on British related commerce, and to anyone that was an ally of the British, and privateering was a means of attacking the enemy’s pocketbook. It also had a great impact on the logistics of the British war machine. This artificially created offense industry, authorized via the Letter of Marque and Reprisal, is an industry that certainly left it’s ‘Marque’. lol

Cool stuff and check it out. –Matt

History: Von Steuben’s Continentals

In honor of this year’s 4th of July or Independence Day, I wanted to point to a very significant part of that victory and history during the Revolutionary War. A document like the Declaration of Independence is nice and all, but it takes brute force and actually winning in order to make that Independence a reality. For that, I choose to celebrate the leaders and warriors, who got us to that point that made independence a reality.

I want to emphasize how important ‘organized violence’ was to the success of the Continental Army. Thanks to General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben and his focus on organizing and training the Continental Army, we could field an army that could compete with the British on the field of battle. He was able to give Washington an effective and organized army to use.  Such an army gives leaders the kind of confidence they need to implement more effective strategies as well.

That we also used a Prussian officer/ mercenary that was contracted by the Continental Army to train and organize their ragtag military is significant as well. An equal comparison would be Sir John Hawkwood and his significance to the defense of the Venetians in 14th century Italy. Or how American Mickey Marcus helped to stand up the Israeli Defense Force in their early days.  Steuben had brought with him a method forged in the battles of Europe, and literally ‘wrote the book’ on war fighting for the Continental Army.

We also had a massive naval effort that included the Continental Navy and Privateers, all hammering away on British logistics. All of these public/private actions, along with a dedicated leadership, helped to bring about victory.

The quality of the film below is a little rough, but still is a great reminder of how significant General Steuben was to the war effort. Below I have posted a clip of the film, and here is an entry from wikipedia about Friederich Wilhelm von Steuben’s training program. Pretty cool. –Matt

Training program

Steuben’s training technique was to create a “model company”, a group of 120 chosen men who in turn successively trained other personnel at Regimental and Brigade levels. Steuben’s eccentric personality greatly enhanced his mystique. He trained the soldiers, who at this point were greatly lacking in proper clothing themselves, in full military dress uniform, swearing and yelling at them up and down in German and French. When that was no longer successful, he recruited Captain Benjamin Walker, his French-speaking aide, to curse at them for him in English. Steuben introduced a system of progressive training, beginning with the school of the soldier, with and without arms, and going through the school of the regiment. This corrected the previous policy of simply assigning personnel to regiments. Each company commander was made responsible for the training of new men, but actual instruction was done by selected sergeants, the best obtainable.

Another program developed by Steuben was camp sanitation. He established standards of sanitation and camp layouts that would still be standard a century and a half later. There had previously been no set arrangement of tents and huts. Men relieved themselves where they wished and when an animal died, it was stripped of its meat and the rest was left to rot where it lay. Steuben laid out a plan to have rows for command, officers and enlisted men. Kitchens and latrines were on opposite sides of the camp, with latrines on the downhill side. There was the familiar arrangement of company and regimental streets.

Perhaps Steuben’s biggest contribution to the American Revolution was training in the use of the bayonet. Since the Battle of Bunker Hill, Americans had been mainly dependent upon using their ammunition to win battles. Throughout the early course of the war, Americans used the bayonet mostly as a cooking skewer or tool rather than as a fighting instrument. Steuben’s introduction of effective bayonet charges became crucial. In the Battle of Stony Point, American soldiers attacked with unloaded muskets and won the battle solely on Steuben’s bayonet training.

The first results of Steuben’s training were in evidence at the Battle of Barren Hill, 20 May 1778 and then again at the Battle of Monmouth in June 1778. Steuben, by then serving in Washington’s Headquarters, was the first to determine the enemy was heading for Monmouth. Washington recommended appointment of Steuben as Inspector General on April 30; Congress approved it on May 5. During the winter of 1778-1779, Steuben prepared Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, commonly known as the “Blue Book.” Its basis was the training plan he had devised at Valley Forge.

 

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

History: A Closer Look At The Life Of Sir John Hawkwood

Filed under: History,Quotes — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 2:40 PM

“God take away your alms. For as you live by charity, so do I by war, and to me it is as genuine a vocation as yours.”
– Sir John Hawkwood,
upon being greeted by two friars with the words, “God give you peace.”

So with this post, I wanted to highlight a quote from The Prince below that is of significance. Machiavelli used John Hawkwood as an example of ‘one who did not conquer’ or desired to conquer Florence. To me, this pointed out a key element to Hawkwood’s success. That he identified a niche in the market of force back then that made his services and company stand out.

Hawkwood was an extremely successful captain back then, and his services were highly sought after. But what is most interesting to me is this guy was a foreigner in Italy at the time. And yet he was so successful and so respected that he had the name of Giovanni Acuto given to him, awarded land, made commander of forces, citizenship offered, a pension– and get this, he was buried with state honors in the Duomo! Not bad for a foreigner and the son of an Essex tanner?

His last days as a commander of forces in Florence, are what the people remembered, just because he was so crucial to the defense of that city against Milanese expansion. But the war that impressed me, that was supposedly one of the most famous wars of that time period, was the Battle of Castagnaro. Here is a snippet from wikipedia:

Battle of Castagnaro
The Battle of Castagnaro was fought on March 11, 1387 at Castagnaro (today’s Veneto, northern Italy) between Verona and Padua. It is one of the most famous battles of the Italian condottieri age.
The army of Verona was led by Giovanni Ordelaffi and Ostasio II da Polenta, while the victorious Paduans were commanded by John Hawkwood (Giovanni Acuto) and Francesco Novello da Carrara, the son of Francesco I, lord of Padua.
Castagnaro is hailed as Sir John Hawkwood’s greatest victory. Following a Fabian-like strategy, Hawkwood goaded the Veronese into attacking him on a field of his own choosing, by laying waste to the Veronese lands nearby.
Drawing his forces up on the far side of a canal, and anchoring his right flank on a patch of woods, Hawkwood waited until the Veronese had committed to attacking across a ford of fascines piled up in the canal. Once so occupied, Hawkwood sprang his trap.
Hawkwood had left a copy of his standard behind his forces, then had led his cavalry into the woods to his right. At a given signal – supposedly, a flaming arrow – the copy of his standard dropped, and Hawkwood’s cavalry burst from the woods on the Veronese left, with his real standard in front. At the point of impact, Hawkwood is said to have cast his commander’s baton into the Veronese ranks and ordered his men to retrieve it for him.
Per Trease, it is said that Hawkwoods battle cry that day was a grim play on the Paduan war-cry of Carro! – in Hawkwood’s rendition, it became Carne! (“Flesh!”).

It is also important to point out Hawkwood’s secrets to success.  He certainly was acute or a student of warfare, and he identified the niche he needed to not only be marketable, but dominate. He also had a sense of humor, as stated with that last sentence in the quote.  Here is another quote from wikipedia:

However part of the White Company’s reputation was built upon the fact that Sir John’s men were far less likely to desert dangerous situations than other mercenaries and Hawkwood soon grew much richer than many other condottiere.

This quote tells me a lot. It says that he focused on taking care of his people.  The only way you can keep guys from deserting like this, is that they must have trusted Hawkwood and that he paid well. He had the top company to work for back then, and when you have a good company, you gain loyalty and develop unit cohesion. Success breeds success, as they say. I would compare it to a company like Apple or Google, and how these companies attract the best of the best, and keep them around because they pay well and the leadership/culture is awesome. Not to mention that these folks also believe in the product or service being sold.

Finally, I wanted to end this with the quote up top that also sheds some light into the mindset of Hawkwood. I do not classify this as an indication of Hawkwood’s religious beliefs or intentions, but more an indication as to his life’s focus. That he was a student of warfare, and a student of the market of force he worked in.  That he understood the Italian way of the condottiere, and mastered it.-Matt


Sir John Hawkwood is on the right side.

The Prince
by Nicolo Machiavelli
CHAPTER XII
How Many Kinds Of Soldiery There Are, And Concerning Mercenaries
…And if the Venetians and Florentines formerly extended their dominions by these arms, and yet their captains did not make themselves princes, but have defended them, I reply that the Florentines in this case have been favoured by chance, for of the able captains, of whom they might have stood in fear, some have not conquered, some have been opposed, and others have turned their ambitions elsewhere. One who did not conquer was Giovanni Acuto, and since he did not conquer his fidelity cannot be proved; but every one will acknowledge that, had he conquered, the Florentines would have stood at his discretion.

—————————————————————-

The Condottiere

“A condottiere (plural condottieri) was the holder of a military condotta (plural condotte), or contract, for the raising and leadership of troops.  While condotte were being issued by Italian cities and states as early as the second half of the twelve hundreds as a means of recruiting a part of their armies, it was only in the later years of the thirteen hundreds that such contracts became the main method of raising armies in Italy.  The companies, often made up largely of foreigners (many of whom had been left “unemployed” by the temporary cessation of the Hundred Years War around the time of the Black Death in 1348), which dominated Italian warfare for much of the thirteen hundreds, were normally employed under contract, but they were surprisingly democratic in their organization, and the contracts with employing states were signed by representative groups of leaders.  By about 1370 individual military commanders had largely gained control of the companies and had become the sole contractors for their services.  From this moment onwards the vast majority of condottieri were Italians and they dominated the military scene in Italy throughout the fourteen hundreds.
The nuclei of the companies which condottieri contracted to provide were normally kept permanently in being and augmented for specific contracts and campaigns by recruitment of additional rank and file. The condottiere, therefore, was invariably a man of substance possessing estates and permanent income which enabled him to maintain his principal followers between contracts and recruit rapidly from amongst his own tenants and dependants. These socio-economic conditions were of more importance than military reputation in dictating the size of the contract which a condottiere could obtain, and hence his prestige and reputation. Many of the leading condottieri were either independent princes like the Gonzaga lords of Mantua or the Este lords of Ferrara, or were members of extensive landowning families like the Orsini or Dal Verme.
The main strength of the condottiere company lay in its ‘lances’, a term which describes not only the main weapon of heavily armed cavalrymen but also the group of attendants who supported them.  However, during the fourteen hundreds, condottieri began to take an increasing interest in infantry as an essential support to their cavalry, and a number of leading captains also possessed some artillery.  While it would be wrong to see a willingness to experiment and innovate as an outstanding characteristic of the condottieri, there were among them some major military personalities.  Men like Francesco Sforza, Bartolomeo Colleoni and Federico da Montefeltro had European reputations in the mid-fourteen hundreds, and in the Wars of Italy many of the most successful leaders of the French and Spanish armies in Italy were Italian condottieri.
Undoubtedly the contract system of service tended to breed a sort of military individualism which weakened the cohesion of a large army, but in fact by the fourteen hundreds the system did not mean that condottieri changed their employment with every contract.  The Italian states were among the first in Europe to develop permanent armies, and most Italian condottieri settled into a pattern of routine renewals of increasingly long-term contracts with one or other of the states.  There remained the exceptional figures whose reputations, and whose control of what amounted to large private armies, prompted political ambitions and made them targets of increasingly tempting offers from potential employers.  But at this level the condotta took on some of the characteristics of a diplomatic alliance, and a switch of allegiance has to be seen in terms of international politics rather than individual infidelity.  In formal terms the condotta system and the role of the condottiere as a leader of cavalry survived throughout the fifteen hundreds.  But the declining importance of cavalry in war and the growing political domination of France and Spain in Italy meant an end to their political role and a decline in social prestige.”
Source:  The Thames and Hudson Dictionary of the Italian Renaissance

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress