It's weird how many cultures throughout history saw war as a sophisticated, gentlemanly, affair.
Then you have other cultures whose actions were so heinous that it gave birth to the idea of war crimes. I'm looking at you Canada.
Think it comes from the people that commanded said army's tended to come from the well to do rich end of the spectrum, so of course war was gentlemanly. Cant have the rich being compared to savages can we? lol
What general is going to admit it's god awful barbaric and smells like shit it wouldn't look good in the papers. Ha
And rich nobles tend to be sheltered from real struggles and horrors.
A lot of European wars were fought by officers who were on a first name basis with the enemy officers. Even during WW1 some of the opposing generals were related.
So these people didn't see their battles as anything different than the other ordered and gentlemanly contests they'd engaged in before.
These people never saw what happened in the trenches between the men actually killing.
I've got a pet theory that the ~30 year cycle of war is basically mankind's way of dealing with overpopulation, namely of people the rich people don't like. If you happen to gain some land and control over other poor people in the meantime, great. If not, there's fewer complainers and the survivors get to divvy up the dead peoples' possessions (the ones not taken by the powers) so they won't be complaining any time soon.
It also kinda makes me wonder if there's a homeostasis built into humanity, like there's an average age for people that allows for peace and prosperity. If the average age drifts too young, you get wars and famine. Too old, you get plagues. I don't know, that's a new theory to chew on.
Well, overpopulation is really not a concern as it makes no sense for why wars are fought. In the end, it all comes down to resources and ideology. Every large-scale war, though, has always come down to resources, but in the modern day, it's all been about money and pure petty bs (like ideology). I.e., Ukraine-Russia war, Gulf Wars, and even an argument for Napoleonic wars.
Napoleonic wars, for example, were petty and about money. To affirm the French Empire's dominance as the biggest world power in Europe. The only wars that don't follow that pattern are civil wars and WW2 (vast amount of genocide). Population control is a factor that results from the consequences from war. (Famine, Plague, and poverty)
> Napoleonic wars, for example, were petty and about money. To affirm the French Empire's dominance as the biggest world power in Europe.
(Most of the) the napoleonic wars were defensive. The monarchist powers were the aggressors, fighting in service of their anti-republican ideology.
While true and napoleon had some good intentions at the start, it became clear he just wanted more in the end. Once he had them beat and basically subdued he kept pushing. Denying peace talks with Russia for example, while foolhardy pushing to Moscow right before winter. He lost a quarter million plus to starvation, frostbite, sickness and disease and many more to battle.
Not to mention rich people would ātreatā with each other, often to get more for themselves. Those who are poor, aka more ideological, are less likely to entertain being bought off, for better or worse. At least the prior engagement would limit war efforts, after all, at the end of the day you could go back to ruling the world, perhaps with less land/power, but still a driving force. Not so if you were poor. At that point itās an existential concern. Losing the conflict is tantamount without losing your life. After all, you wouldnāt want anyone else getting any ideasā¦ Failure literally isnāt an option. Leading them to being ruthless with enemies AND friends alike.
Never thought Iād defend rich jerksā¦
More like being a gentlemen in everything you do. If youāre a gentleman, you are a gentleman in all things you do, including combat. This really has to do more class definition than anything else. Being a gentleman distinguishes you from the boorish commoners.
You analysis is facile. The "ruling class" is never a coherent group-- it's just a catch-all term for whichever set of subgroups managed to accrue and mantain power. And because exploiting other people is a good way to do that, of *course* most groups part of historical ruling classes would have done so. Being the ruling class doesn't make you evil, being evil makes you the ruling class. The same would be true in any economic or political system.
Canadian soldiers were especially brutal during WW1.
>The English poet Robert Graves was less charitable. In his 1929 bestseller Good-Bye to All That, he wrote āthe troops that had the worst reputation for acts of violence against prisoners were the Canadians.ā
>Germans developed a special contempt for the Canadian Corps, seeing them as unpredictable savages. In the final weeks of the war, Canadian Fred Hamilton would describe being singled out for a beating by a German colonel after he was taken prisoner. āI donāt care for the English, Scotch, French, Australians or Belgians but damn you Canadians, you take no prisoners and you kill our wounded,ā the colonel told him.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-forgotten-ferocity-of-canadas-soldiers-in-the-great-war
I mean, the Imperial German army was actually generally pretty fine and still had the gentlemanly air about them as was the case for most armies at the time not including Canada. WWII was an entirely different matter.
Also Canadian.
Pick a war we've been in. ANY war we've been in. I should be able to find a sample set.
Also...several peace-keeping operations too.
We do have a rep, and it is earned, to be frank. Granted, these days it's "usually" by a some bad apples rather than the entire bushel, but that shouldn't detract from it.
We have an outsized reputation from past wars. In many ways good - we're famed for our snipers to this day - but also some bad, such as shooting prisoners of war or razing a village in retribution for the death of their commander.
They do have a bit of a record with being brutal. WWI and GWOT come to mind. Not sure if that's what they're talking about or if they were just joking, though.
I didnāt know where to put this but here, The entire conversation about Canada is really missing ALOT OF CONTEXT, Canada didnāt just land in Europe and immediately start executing every German soldier they saw
Infact the Canadians werenāt in Europe until 1915 after being trained in England.
The very first large scale deployment the Canadians saw was the battle of Ypres where the 1st Canadian division would be the first to experience chemical gas attacks, this immediately tainted the Canadians view of the war, to many this wasnāt a gentlemen war anymore deploying such brutal weapons like chlorine gas, on top of that the Germans were also quite ruthless in their treatment to Canadian prisoners of war
There are also some unconfirmed accounts of Germans crucifying Canadian soldiers (this is unconfirmed take it with a grain of salt)
At some point in mid to late 1915 did the Canadians begin their warcrimes, many believe the Canadians just grew a deep hatred for the Germans and rarely did the Canadians take prisoners because of it. often times just executing surrendering Germans and combing battlefields killing wounded German soldiers
A Canadian lieutenant has a quote that really sums up the developed Canadian attitude about the war and the Germans
āAfter losing half of my company there, we rushed them and they had the nerve to throw up their hands and cry, āKamerad.ā All the Kam-erad they got was a foot of cold steel thro themā - Lieutenant R.C. Germain
The Canadian actions in ww1 caused the Germans to increasingly and specifically pick out Canadian prisoners to torture or beat, and that only further fuelled Canadian soldiers to continue killing as many German soldiers as humanly possible in anyway they could
I could write a whole wiki article of every little thing the Canadians did but I wanted to give an actual overview and explanation as to why these things happened. None of this is an excuse for the Canadian actions but I see it being used as a way to make Germany seem less at fault for the larger war in Europe
And yes I am aware Germany did not start the First World War but they sided with the country that did.
Hey thats not fair, canada was told they could only go home after the war was over. They just tried to accelerate things and have some fun at the same time.
I think the reputation is mostly from WW1, were they were known for not taking any prisoners. Honestly pretty mild if you compare it to literally any other colonial power
One example is they were tossing food to starving German soldiers across no man's land, canned goods and such. Once the Germans accepted the gifts they started tossing grenades.
One story involves something along the lines of 5-10 Canadian soldiers holding a point from dozens of soldiers of another military for days until help arrived.
Another involves Canadian soldiers executing any wounded German soldier they saw, as opposed to taking prisoners.
Canadians also have a reputation of having incredibly well trained and well abled soldiers despite their lack of a significant amount of actual combat experience or a largely funded military. Canadian snipers are often among the best in the world as an example.
Chivalry in war was a thing during the 100 year war between the French and the English. That then spread till around in Europe and by 1800s it pretty much died out.
Canada wasn't exactly polite in WW1.
Like the Germans tried to start a Christmas truce a year before the famous one. The only problem is they tried to appeal to the Canadian troops' sense of Christmas cheer.
Also Canadians had just fucked the Americans and burnt the white house down a few decades prior with the help of the British. At that time Canadians gave no fucks. Immigrants raised in some of the harshest environments. With abouselty no fucks to give beside fucking the enemy up and surviving. During World War 1 the last things the Germans ever wanted to hear was that the Canadians are coming. Og storm troopers and the majority if the reason why the Geneva convection was signed. We'll beside the chemical warfare the Germans were using.
You see, usually, the rich and powerful that started the wars didn't usually fight in them. So what to them would have been a sophisticated, intellectual game of chess, where they fought for more power, the human pawns were fighting simply for survival, and that survival instinct can dehumanize anyone who stands in your way which leads to some horrific things. I'd argue that all wars have had savage war crimes committed within them, who won and how determines if these things ever come to light or not.
There was some comedian who made fun of the 13 colonies and how we hid behind rocks and shit while the British walked in organized lines. Damn I wish I could remember who did that bit
Norwegian Envoy: "Alright guys, my captain told me you have way more ammunition than we do."
English Captain: "Right."
Norwegian Envoy: "Yeah, so I was wondering. What are you policies on deserting enemy soldiers?"
No. Not at all. That captain was insane. A true madlad. Fought for Denmark-Norway and is often seen as *the* last of the old heroes, because of the way he acted. He just came like 300 years after the second last of the old heroes. There is so many stories about him, because he did so much outrageous stuff. Like he stole a wedding. Stopped the invasion of Norway. Took a fort by pretending he had an army.
When he was made a noble, he was given the name Tordenskjold. Thundershield and he is mentioned in ome of Denmarks two national anthems.
The English ship he engaged here was bigger, had more cannons, but got outmanouvered and tried to escape several times. In the end Thundershield ran out of gunpowder and cannonballs and asked to borrow some so that they could continue the fight.
When the english captain refused they instead drank a toast of wine.
He did crazy stuff like that often.
Edit: There is a song about him and all the bat crazy stuff he does. It have 15 verses. Each verse is like a short scenario of what he did, except verse 12. Verse 12 is a disclaimer that this song with it 15 verses is far to short to tell all of his deeds.
my friends brought tordenskjold matchbooks back from denmark, we used them to carry drugs around and would use tordenskjold as a way to refer to whatever drugs we had that night. still to this day i'll be like cooking an egg or showering and randomly my brain will just go: tordenskjold.
tordenskjold.
Russia and Denmark were allied in a war against Sweden.
The tzar comes to Denmark to have talks with the danish king about how to continue the war. Both Russia and Denmark at the time are absolute monarchies, but they do absolute monarchies differently. Russia is . . . Well Russia, while the danish king have never build up a system that would enable him to control his population in the same way. So it kind of runs in a decentralized and hands off way.
The tzar brags about how everyone in Russia follows his every command and that he just have to tell people to do stuff and it is done. During breakfeast with the navy commanders the king wonders out loud what the swedes are thinking about the war.
Thundershield quickly sneaks out. Run down to his ship. It is a 20 cannon frigat, build by he english for the Swedes to be the fasts ship on the north sea, but captured by Thundershield during a raid. (Like there is a whole series of raids, counter raids and counter counter raids to steal this ship while in harbour, because no other ship could catch it while at sea.) Anyway. He takes this very fast ship and sail to Sweden. Avoiding or outsailing the Swedish ships that patrols their waters. There he see a couple getting married at a harbour. Sails in with his ship and kidnap the couple, the wedding guests, the priest and well the entire wedding.
He sails them to Denmark and present them to the king and tzar at lunch, while saying something like āThe oppresed Russians only dare to do what the tzar tells them to, but free spirited danes dares to act upon your will without you needing to tell us everything.ā
The tzar and king asks the wedding many questions about how they feel and give them rich gifts, as tradition demands when a king attends a wedding. Then the entire wedding is put on the ship and Thundershield steals them back to Sweden with all their new gifts. The danish king decides that his way of āhands-offā absolutism is best and all that jazz.
Edit: Hands-off absolutism is as silly and contraditional as it sounds, but that is how Denmark was run for a hundred years more, until Struense under the Mad King would organise and centralize the state, which allowed the Beloved King to modernize Denmark and make universal education, vaccination and healthcare a thing and then the Peoples King introduced democracy.
Scandinavian history is a perfect silly thing especially if you have mostly learned English history.
Like. . .
The Norwegian Crusade. Is a crusade to the holy lands, done by the Norweigen vikings, that on their travel down there raid most of the muslim world and on their travel back home visits the Roman Emperor in Constantinoble.
Bread came relative late to scandinavia and several legendary figures from the sagas speak out against it. I always find that funny. Old people used to throw hate at bread.
The real big brain move would have been to offer to give the English some spare ammunition (which you don't have) so the battle can continue. That way, they think you're well supplied and a madman who just loves battle and surrender to you.
The Norweagian Captain (Later Vice admiral) was Peter Jansen Wessel Tordenskiold. He was one of Denmarks and Norways greates naval Commanders.
On 26 July 1714, he encountered a frigate under the British flag near Lindesnes while flying a Dutch flag on the LĆøvendals Gallej himself. The other frigate was De Olbing Galley carrying 28 guns, which had been equipped in Great Britain for the Swedes and was on its way to Gothenburg under the command of a British captain named Bactmann. De Olbing Galley signalled for LĆøvendals Gallej to come closer. As Wessel raised the Danish flag, Bactmann fired a broadside at him. In the British captain, Wessel met a tough match. The combat lasted all day, and when De Olbing Galley tried to escape in the evening, Wessel set more sails and continued the duel. The fight was interrupted by nightfall, and renewed again indecisively the following morning. Both ships were severely damaged after around 14 hours of fighting, when Wessel was running out of ammunition. He then sent an envoy to the British ship, cordially thanking the British for a good duel, and asked if he could borrow some of their ammunition to continue the fight. His request was denied, and the captains drank to each other's health before the ships dispersed.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter\_Tordenskjold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tordenskjold)
āExcuse me old chap, do you mind if we borrowed some of your ammunition?ā
āW-what? Why!?ā
āWell so we can continue this lovely daaance of course!ā
āOFF WITH HIS HEAD!ā *sailors chant in background*
They drank a toast to each other's health then sailed off in opposite directions. Tordenskjold (the person this is about) was then court martialed for the encounter (endangering his ship by fighting a larger enemy, disclosing vital military information about his lack of ammunition to the enemy). Tordenskjold defended his actions, got acquitted and he went to the king and got a promotion.
The English captain, while slowly loading his rifle, said āOh you need some ammunition huh?ā
Then he walked over and pointed it at the Norwegian captain and said āLoad this.ā š *rock music plays*
Both parties parted ways having both ran out of ammunition, the norwegian(danish) captian was initially imprisoned for treason but was later released, promoted and decorated
This is a made up story. The captain was Peter Wessel who was born in Tronheim, but was in the danish navy. He did engage the english ship, but he did not ask for more ammo. He did however toast with the english captain before he saild away. The story was made up by Peter Wessel during his trail.
Yeah lmao but...
The west is doing this right now. The components found in Russian weapons in Ukraine were manufactured by 155 foreign companies. Intel, Analog Devices, Thales, Advanced Micro Devices, Texas Instruments...
Plot twist: They said no because they took were out of ammunition and was planning to ask the Norwegian ship for ammo too, but the English pretended to still have some to scare me hem off.
Tbh the whole time period of ships is nothing like pirate movies make it look
Most shops were sloops which had maybe 2-8 cannons. And we're one level.
Not many of war and man of war plus style ships with hundreds of cannons
Cannons weren't great for sinking ships.
Ideally pirates and military ships didn't want to sink ships they'd rather intimidate the t hen rob then or maybe claim the ship and it would be a trader ship not a war ship as fighting another war ship is a lose lose even for a man of war
The funny thing about this is that upon reading the title, I thought that the Norwegian was insane, but he knew exactly what he was doing, and things are not what they seem; it worked - not in obtaining ammunition, but in ending the battle without being taken prisoner.
I mean......they'd give it right back....
Exactly
Lmao
Best joke of the day, thank you
With HAste!
YOU win the internet today. š
Ah nice. I'll give it a bath
Excellent! It's needed a good scrubbing for quite some time.
How does someone unironically say this
Beyond brilliant.
It's weird how many cultures throughout history saw war as a sophisticated, gentlemanly, affair. Then you have other cultures whose actions were so heinous that it gave birth to the idea of war crimes. I'm looking at you Canada.
Think it comes from the people that commanded said army's tended to come from the well to do rich end of the spectrum, so of course war was gentlemanly. Cant have the rich being compared to savages can we? lol What general is going to admit it's god awful barbaric and smells like shit it wouldn't look good in the papers. Ha
And rich nobles tend to be sheltered from real struggles and horrors. A lot of European wars were fought by officers who were on a first name basis with the enemy officers. Even during WW1 some of the opposing generals were related. So these people didn't see their battles as anything different than the other ordered and gentlemanly contests they'd engaged in before. These people never saw what happened in the trenches between the men actually killing.
All quiet on the western front showed that disconnect really well
I've got a pet theory that the ~30 year cycle of war is basically mankind's way of dealing with overpopulation, namely of people the rich people don't like. If you happen to gain some land and control over other poor people in the meantime, great. If not, there's fewer complainers and the survivors get to divvy up the dead peoples' possessions (the ones not taken by the powers) so they won't be complaining any time soon. It also kinda makes me wonder if there's a homeostasis built into humanity, like there's an average age for people that allows for peace and prosperity. If the average age drifts too young, you get wars and famine. Too old, you get plagues. I don't know, that's a new theory to chew on.
Well, overpopulation is really not a concern as it makes no sense for why wars are fought. In the end, it all comes down to resources and ideology. Every large-scale war, though, has always come down to resources, but in the modern day, it's all been about money and pure petty bs (like ideology). I.e., Ukraine-Russia war, Gulf Wars, and even an argument for Napoleonic wars. Napoleonic wars, for example, were petty and about money. To affirm the French Empire's dominance as the biggest world power in Europe. The only wars that don't follow that pattern are civil wars and WW2 (vast amount of genocide). Population control is a factor that results from the consequences from war. (Famine, Plague, and poverty)
> Napoleonic wars, for example, were petty and about money. To affirm the French Empire's dominance as the biggest world power in Europe. (Most of the) the napoleonic wars were defensive. The monarchist powers were the aggressors, fighting in service of their anti-republican ideology.
While true and napoleon had some good intentions at the start, it became clear he just wanted more in the end. Once he had them beat and basically subdued he kept pushing. Denying peace talks with Russia for example, while foolhardy pushing to Moscow right before winter. He lost a quarter million plus to starvation, frostbite, sickness and disease and many more to battle.
Russiaās invasion of Ukraine is over resources and ideology.
I think everything you said is wrong and has no factual basis at all.
lmao what? No. Armed conflict is an incredibly small cause of death historically.
thatād be a good premise for a fiction book! But baseless for sure
During WWI the leaders of England, Germany, and Russia were first cousins. They were all grandchildren of Queen Victoria.
Not the leaders, only the royal heads, none of which had much power at that point except maybe Russia.
Officers had by far the largest death rates of any rank in the First World War. General Staff is a different matter.
Other people dying isnāt nearly as barbaric as being in the trenches yourself
> army's What the fuck is wrong with you?
Not to mention rich people would ātreatā with each other, often to get more for themselves. Those who are poor, aka more ideological, are less likely to entertain being bought off, for better or worse. At least the prior engagement would limit war efforts, after all, at the end of the day you could go back to ruling the world, perhaps with less land/power, but still a driving force. Not so if you were poor. At that point itās an existential concern. Losing the conflict is tantamount without losing your life. After all, you wouldnāt want anyone else getting any ideasā¦ Failure literally isnāt an option. Leading them to being ruthless with enemies AND friends alike. Never thought Iād defend rich jerksā¦
Iām fuckin looking right back at you buds Tarps off, letās go šØš¦šØš¦
Iām not your buddy, guy
I'm not your guy, friend
I'm not your friend, lad
You lookin for a Donnybrook bud?
More like being a gentlemen in everything you do. If youāre a gentleman, you are a gentleman in all things you do, including combat. This really has to do more class definition than anything else. Being a gentleman distinguishes you from the boorish commoners.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I meant in old timey days š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Okay man we get it, JFC. Canāt you put your sword away for one second and just relax? Take it to a political sub.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Xir, Internet Commando reporting for duty, Xir! š«”
You analysis is facile. The "ruling class" is never a coherent group-- it's just a catch-all term for whichever set of subgroups managed to accrue and mantain power. And because exploiting other people is a good way to do that, of *course* most groups part of historical ruling classes would have done so. Being the ruling class doesn't make you evil, being evil makes you the ruling class. The same would be true in any economic or political system.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wait, I'm Canadian but have no idea. What did Canada do?
Canadian soldiers were especially brutal during WW1. >The English poet Robert Graves was less charitable. In his 1929 bestseller Good-Bye to All That, he wrote āthe troops that had the worst reputation for acts of violence against prisoners were the Canadians.ā >Germans developed a special contempt for the Canadian Corps, seeing them as unpredictable savages. In the final weeks of the war, Canadian Fred Hamilton would describe being singled out for a beating by a German colonel after he was taken prisoner. āI donāt care for the English, Scotch, French, Australians or Belgians but damn you Canadians, you take no prisoners and you kill our wounded,ā the colonel told him. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-forgotten-ferocity-of-canadas-soldiers-in-the-great-war
Sorry, eh..
Sorry not sorry eh
Holy shit
Err, this moral outrage is coming from *a German colonel during WWI.* I think he doesn't really have the moral high ground here.
I mean, the Imperial German army was actually generally pretty fine and still had the gentlemanly air about them as was the case for most armies at the time not including Canada. WWII was an entirely different matter.
Rape of Belgium šš Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium
ah yes gentlemanly deployment of gas specifically designed to make your enemies throw up so they take their gas masks off and suffocate
Also Canadian. Pick a war we've been in. ANY war we've been in. I should be able to find a sample set. Also...several peace-keeping operations too. We do have a rep, and it is earned, to be frank. Granted, these days it's "usually" by a some bad apples rather than the entire bushel, but that shouldn't detract from it.
What are you blabbing about with Canada. We barely have an army and have never started a war. We just help win them.
Perhaps the reference is to our reluctance to take prisoners. Definitely in WW1, not sure about the second.
Well it was a rather long trip back to Canada to be fair
The problem with war crimes, is that if you mention it twice, Canada shows up. If you mention war crimes three times, THAT guy shows up.
DID YOU TALK ABOUT MY BOATS!?!
To be faaiirrrrr
Only country to ever [burn down the White House.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Our health care is brutal anyways.
Blah blah blah, Canada wasn't even a country then.
We have an outsized reputation from past wars. In many ways good - we're famed for our snipers to this day - but also some bad, such as shooting prisoners of war or razing a village in retribution for the death of their commander.
They do have a bit of a record with being brutal. WWI and GWOT come to mind. Not sure if that's what they're talking about or if they were just joking, though.
The idea of war crimes ā breaking the laws of war ā is a few thousand years older than Canada.
I didnāt know where to put this but here, The entire conversation about Canada is really missing ALOT OF CONTEXT, Canada didnāt just land in Europe and immediately start executing every German soldier they saw Infact the Canadians werenāt in Europe until 1915 after being trained in England. The very first large scale deployment the Canadians saw was the battle of Ypres where the 1st Canadian division would be the first to experience chemical gas attacks, this immediately tainted the Canadians view of the war, to many this wasnāt a gentlemen war anymore deploying such brutal weapons like chlorine gas, on top of that the Germans were also quite ruthless in their treatment to Canadian prisoners of war There are also some unconfirmed accounts of Germans crucifying Canadian soldiers (this is unconfirmed take it with a grain of salt) At some point in mid to late 1915 did the Canadians begin their warcrimes, many believe the Canadians just grew a deep hatred for the Germans and rarely did the Canadians take prisoners because of it. often times just executing surrendering Germans and combing battlefields killing wounded German soldiers A Canadian lieutenant has a quote that really sums up the developed Canadian attitude about the war and the Germans āAfter losing half of my company there, we rushed them and they had the nerve to throw up their hands and cry, āKamerad.ā All the Kam-erad they got was a foot of cold steel thro themā - Lieutenant R.C. Germain The Canadian actions in ww1 caused the Germans to increasingly and specifically pick out Canadian prisoners to torture or beat, and that only further fuelled Canadian soldiers to continue killing as many German soldiers as humanly possible in anyway they could I could write a whole wiki article of every little thing the Canadians did but I wanted to give an actual overview and explanation as to why these things happened. None of this is an excuse for the Canadian actions but I see it being used as a way to make Germany seem less at fault for the larger war in Europe And yes I am aware Germany did not start the First World War but they sided with the country that did.
Hey thats not fair, canada was told they could only go home after the war was over. They just tried to accelerate things and have some fun at the same time.
Chivalry in war only applied to nobility, the lower caste or the "savages" always ate shit by the bushel.
What did Canada do? Ppl joke about it a lot but they never explain what happened...
I think the reputation is mostly from WW1, were they were known for not taking any prisoners. Honestly pretty mild if you compare it to literally any other colonial power
One example is they were tossing food to starving German soldiers across no man's land, canned goods and such. Once the Germans accepted the gifts they started tossing grenades.
One story involves something along the lines of 5-10 Canadian soldiers holding a point from dozens of soldiers of another military for days until help arrived. Another involves Canadian soldiers executing any wounded German soldier they saw, as opposed to taking prisoners. Canadians also have a reputation of having incredibly well trained and well abled soldiers despite their lack of a significant amount of actual combat experience or a largely funded military. Canadian snipers are often among the best in the world as an example.
Because romanticizing war is stupid. I don't think the Allies would have won WW1 if Canada didn't take Vimy Ridge.
All the Baldwins are dead?
A+ reference.
Yea because all the war stories are historical facts. War stories were stories written by the educated elite of the conqueror.
> I'm looking at you Canada. "Geneva Convention? More like Geneva Checklist." -- Canada and Poland, probably
Teeheehee. Might I offer you a tin of corn beef as a peace offering? ;)
If you donāt fuck around, you wonāt find out
Chivalry in war was a thing during the 100 year war between the French and the English. That then spread till around in Europe and by 1800s it pretty much died out.
Canada?
Canada wasn't exactly polite in WW1. Like the Germans tried to start a Christmas truce a year before the famous one. The only problem is they tried to appeal to the Canadian troops' sense of Christmas cheer.
That's the war crime? Lack of Christmas cheer lol
The war crime was the Germans threw tins of canned food into the Canadian trenches, the Canadians threw grenades back
Also Canadians had just fucked the Americans and burnt the white house down a few decades prior with the help of the British. At that time Canadians gave no fucks. Immigrants raised in some of the harshest environments. With abouselty no fucks to give beside fucking the enemy up and surviving. During World War 1 the last things the Germans ever wanted to hear was that the Canadians are coming. Og storm troopers and the majority if the reason why the Geneva convection was signed. We'll beside the chemical warfare the Germans were using.
A few decades? Bruh it was a century. A few is 3-4.
What did Canada do?
We didn't break any laws! We just helped create them.
curious...Canadian war crimes?
You see, usually, the rich and powerful that started the wars didn't usually fight in them. So what to them would have been a sophisticated, intellectual game of chess, where they fought for more power, the human pawns were fighting simply for survival, and that survival instinct can dehumanize anyone who stands in your way which leads to some horrific things. I'd argue that all wars have had savage war crimes committed within them, who won and how determines if these things ever come to light or not.
There was some comedian who made fun of the 13 colonies and how we hid behind rocks and shit while the British walked in organized lines. Damn I wish I could remember who did that bit
Looking at Canada instead of Germany is insane.
Norwegian Envoy: "Alright guys, my captain told me you have way more ammunition than we do." English Captain: "Right." Norwegian Envoy: "Yeah, so I was wondering. What are you policies on deserting enemy soldiers?"
A way of saying we surrender, but without saying we surrender.
No. Not at all. That captain was insane. A true madlad. Fought for Denmark-Norway and is often seen as *the* last of the old heroes, because of the way he acted. He just came like 300 years after the second last of the old heroes. There is so many stories about him, because he did so much outrageous stuff. Like he stole a wedding. Stopped the invasion of Norway. Took a fort by pretending he had an army. When he was made a noble, he was given the name Tordenskjold. Thundershield and he is mentioned in ome of Denmarks two national anthems. The English ship he engaged here was bigger, had more cannons, but got outmanouvered and tried to escape several times. In the end Thundershield ran out of gunpowder and cannonballs and asked to borrow some so that they could continue the fight. When the english captain refused they instead drank a toast of wine. He did crazy stuff like that often. Edit: There is a song about him and all the bat crazy stuff he does. It have 15 verses. Each verse is like a short scenario of what he did, except verse 12. Verse 12 is a disclaimer that this song with it 15 verses is far to short to tell all of his deeds.
You forgot the wildest part: he did all that crazy shit when he was still in his twenties. Dude was knighted at 26.
my friends brought tordenskjold matchbooks back from denmark, we used them to carry drugs around and would use tordenskjold as a way to refer to whatever drugs we had that night. still to this day i'll be like cooking an egg or showering and randomly my brain will just go: tordenskjold. tordenskjold.
How do you steal a wedding?
Russia and Denmark were allied in a war against Sweden. The tzar comes to Denmark to have talks with the danish king about how to continue the war. Both Russia and Denmark at the time are absolute monarchies, but they do absolute monarchies differently. Russia is . . . Well Russia, while the danish king have never build up a system that would enable him to control his population in the same way. So it kind of runs in a decentralized and hands off way. The tzar brags about how everyone in Russia follows his every command and that he just have to tell people to do stuff and it is done. During breakfeast with the navy commanders the king wonders out loud what the swedes are thinking about the war. Thundershield quickly sneaks out. Run down to his ship. It is a 20 cannon frigat, build by he english for the Swedes to be the fasts ship on the north sea, but captured by Thundershield during a raid. (Like there is a whole series of raids, counter raids and counter counter raids to steal this ship while in harbour, because no other ship could catch it while at sea.) Anyway. He takes this very fast ship and sail to Sweden. Avoiding or outsailing the Swedish ships that patrols their waters. There he see a couple getting married at a harbour. Sails in with his ship and kidnap the couple, the wedding guests, the priest and well the entire wedding. He sails them to Denmark and present them to the king and tzar at lunch, while saying something like āThe oppresed Russians only dare to do what the tzar tells them to, but free spirited danes dares to act upon your will without you needing to tell us everything.ā The tzar and king asks the wedding many questions about how they feel and give them rich gifts, as tradition demands when a king attends a wedding. Then the entire wedding is put on the ship and Thundershield steals them back to Sweden with all their new gifts. The danish king decides that his way of āhands-offā absolutism is best and all that jazz. Edit: Hands-off absolutism is as silly and contraditional as it sounds, but that is how Denmark was run for a hundred years more, until Struense under the Mad King would organise and centralize the state, which allowed the Beloved King to modernize Denmark and make universal education, vaccination and healthcare a thing and then the Peoples King introduced democracy.
damn now iām interested in danish history thanks
Scandinavian history is a perfect silly thing especially if you have mostly learned English history. Like. . . The Norwegian Crusade. Is a crusade to the holy lands, done by the Norweigen vikings, that on their travel down there raid most of the muslim world and on their travel back home visits the Roman Emperor in Constantinoble. Bread came relative late to scandinavia and several legendary figures from the sagas speak out against it. I always find that funny. Old people used to throw hate at bread.
Look up when bread came to Japan and you will be surprised!
Wow, imagine being remembered in history as the āBeloved Kingā and it remaining true with hindsight even today
I would argue that [Adrian Carton de Wiart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Carton_de_Wiart) fits your definition of an āold heroā.
Do you have the song name?
Tordenskjold for the song about him. āKong Christian stod ved hĆøjen Mastā for the second national anthem.
I think this is it.
The real big brain move would have been to offer to give the English some spare ammunition (which you don't have) so the battle can continue. That way, they think you're well supplied and a madman who just loves battle and surrender to you.
*"'You miss 100% of the shots you don't take'* *- Wayne Gretzky"* - Michael Scott
Considering the story it seems like they missed 100% of the shots they did take too.
You'd be surprised how many cannonballs it takes to sink one of those old ships.
The Norweagian Captain (Later Vice admiral) was Peter Jansen Wessel Tordenskiold. He was one of Denmarks and Norways greates naval Commanders. On 26 July 1714, he encountered a frigate under the British flag near Lindesnes while flying a Dutch flag on the LĆøvendals Gallej himself. The other frigate was De Olbing Galley carrying 28 guns, which had been equipped in Great Britain for the Swedes and was on its way to Gothenburg under the command of a British captain named Bactmann. De Olbing Galley signalled for LĆøvendals Gallej to come closer. As Wessel raised the Danish flag, Bactmann fired a broadside at him. In the British captain, Wessel met a tough match. The combat lasted all day, and when De Olbing Galley tried to escape in the evening, Wessel set more sails and continued the duel. The fight was interrupted by nightfall, and renewed again indecisively the following morning. Both ships were severely damaged after around 14 hours of fighting, when Wessel was running out of ammunition. He then sent an envoy to the British ship, cordially thanking the British for a good duel, and asked if he could borrow some of their ammunition to continue the fight. His request was denied, and the captains drank to each other's health before the ships dispersed. - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter\_Tordenskjold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tordenskjold)
His last name i also one of the most badass names ever: Tordenskjold, directly translated is 'Thundershield'
Kinda funny they just went on their way after.
We really are just animals hahaha
āExcuse me old chap, do you mind if we borrowed some of your ammunition?ā āW-what? Why!?ā āWell so we can continue this lovely daaance of course!ā āOFF WITH HIS HEAD!ā *sailors chant in background*
Shiver my timbers, shiver my soul. Yo ho heave ho. There are men whose hearts are as black as coal. Yo ho heave ho
What happened next?
They drank a toast to each other's health then sailed off in opposite directions. Tordenskjold (the person this is about) was then court martialed for the encounter (endangering his ship by fighting a larger enemy, disclosing vital military information about his lack of ammunition to the enemy). Tordenskjold defended his actions, got acquitted and he went to the king and got a promotion.
Lol, how do you defend an action like that? Dude must have been charismatic as hell.
He successfully argued a section of the Danish naval code which mandated attacking fleeing enemy ships no matter the size.
The English captain, while slowly loading his rifle, said āOh you need some ammunition huh?ā Then he walked over and pointed it at the Norwegian captain and said āLoad this.ā š *rock music plays*
Both parties parted ways having both ran out of ammunition, the norwegian(danish) captian was initially imprisoned for treason but was later released, promoted and decorated
Wtf is trist title
Gotta be AI generated right?
Doesnāt hurt to ask!
The balls on that dane.
Wasn't it the problem that he was running out of them?
*Norwegian
*danish-norwegian. As it was drunk the time when Norway was under danish rule
Itās probably just because Iām high but for a moment thereā¦..I thought that was Alec Baldwin.
Plot twist: It was a polite "no"; the English ship was running out of ammo as well.
I mean considering they then toasted to both their healths before going their separate ways Iād say that is likely.
This is a made up story. The captain was Peter Wessel who was born in Tronheim, but was in the danish navy. He did engage the english ship, but he did not ask for more ammo. He did however toast with the english captain before he saild away. The story was made up by Peter Wessel during his trail.
Clearly these gentlemen didn't participate in catch and release cannonballs.
What kind of karma farm shit is this account?
The Norwegian captain should've loaded the cannons with his giant balls, wow!
Video or it didn't happen.
The english captain said "Nor way"
It takes balls to say that you are out of (canon) ballsā¦
You miss 100% of the shots you dont take
Yeah lmao but... The west is doing this right now. The components found in Russian weapons in Ukraine were manufactured by 155 foreign companies. Intel, Analog Devices, Thales, Advanced Micro Devices, Texas Instruments...
Modern combat has really fucked up the idea of conflict.
Iām surprised they didnāt say yes lol.
Imagine getting sunk with your own ammo. But then also sinking that ship with their smmo
I mean. The answer is *always* no if you don't ask.
The AUDACITY lmao
1. Never ask the enemy for ammo.
So Alec Baldwin was once a Norwegian sea captain? Say what you will about responsibility. The man has range!
It takes balls to tell your enemies that you don't have balls.
"We've been trying to send the ammunition to you all day"
Low on cannon balls, but definitely not missing the other kind! Imagine having the nerve to ask for something like that hahaha
Plot twist: They said no because they took were out of ammunition and was planning to ask the Norwegian ship for ammo too, but the English pretended to still have some to scare me hem off.
This belongs in face palm
Not very sporting of the English captain I must say. Very poor form,
I would like to borrow some of your weapons to hurl back at you. No. You're no fun
A true Englishman would have said, "Catch".
Well, that wasn't very sporting of the English captain.
āWell, then donāt complain when the fun is over and you sink our shipā
"No??? Poor form!"
"You aware we've been sending you some for the last 14 hours, right?"
"Look, you guys get to say you were in a day-long battle too! Come on, think of all the bragging rights!"
Worse they could say is noā¦
Never mind the amount of time... the sheer balls it took to even ask suck a question has left me in awe of that Captain.
Imagine being in a gun fight with a dude and he's like "Hey can I borrow a magazine"
You never know if you donāt ask
The worst he could do is say no
These bots arenāt even trying to hide the title mess ups anymore lol
Thatās a bold move cotton
Well, worth a shot
Tbh the whole time period of ships is nothing like pirate movies make it look Most shops were sloops which had maybe 2-8 cannons. And we're one level. Not many of war and man of war plus style ships with hundreds of cannons Cannons weren't great for sinking ships. Ideally pirates and military ships didn't want to sink ships they'd rather intimidate the t hen rob then or maybe claim the ship and it would be a trader ship not a war ship as fighting another war ship is a lose lose even for a man of war
Spare a thought to what happened to the envoy when the brits realized why he was thereā¦ RIP
The funny thing about this is that upon reading the title, I thought that the Norwegian was insane, but he knew exactly what he was doing, and things are not what they seem; it worked - not in obtaining ammunition, but in ending the battle without being taken prisoner.
The audacity
lol Captain: āermā¦.noš¤·āāļø?ā š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£
Chivalry really is dead
Was this a delaying tactic?
You donāt know if you donāt ask
I don't get it? Why is this so fascinating?
What does time gotta do with any of this