111–114 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a siege in any sense. What sieges not only allow the besieged to conduct import/export but actively pay for the besieged’s supplies? Leave the ideology somewhere else
Which ideology are you referring to here? I don’t see one in their comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough. Шаганов is still alive (and posted to VK yesterday) so I'll ask.
Hah, look forward to the answer if one comes up! Я популярно объясняю для невежд Я к болгарам уезжаю, в Будапешт! Если темы там возникнут — сразу снять Бить не нужно. А не вникнут — разъяснять
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the notion of "established, continuing, and continuous front line" is anachronistic to the Revolutionary War in any case. As late as the American Civil War, an army could freely roam through the enemy countryside with relative impunity until a defending army caught up with them, as happened at Antietam and Gettysburg; there was no "front line" to punch through.
The US is large, true. More a matter of control points, such as Harper's Ferry. That's where Lee had to punch through to get to Antietam, in 1862, for example. https://www.nps.gov/hafe/learn/historyculture/1862-battle-of... But I haven't asserted that all regular wars have front lines all the time. Just that guerrilla wars don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve heard that due to the militia system, an insanely large number of Americans participated in the revolution. Much higher than the conscript armies of the 20th century - possibly as high as 13%. That’s greater mobilization than in WWII.
> Much higher than the conscript armies of the 20th century - possibly as high as 13% Considering it was as high as 80% of military aged men for Germany and France, with a few other countries in the 50-70% range, why do you think 13%, even if you mean from the whole population, is higher?