Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

resobscura.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 97 posts

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#41

Post by Someone »

ethbr1 wrote: post #22

It's curious how people are responding to the title, rather than the post, which touches on the title but is mostly about another thing: >> There’s something beguiling about the thought that a simple arrangement of lines might explain the world — like seeing human history as an enormous game of Civilization 6. But of course, that’s also the problem with using maps as a way of understanding history. If you’re not care…

That isn’t limited to maps, but applies to all models of reality, such as Newtonian physics, spherical cows, models of the economy that are used to guide policy or large language models.

Also, oftentimes creators of models do not know what details are necessary for a model’s purpose, and may omit ones they aren’t aware of.

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#42

Post by gustavus »

TSiege wrote: post #33
gustavus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a couple of points of clarifications > specifically the battle of cannae, leading to world war one is pretty weak. I buy that German generals were obsessed with the battle, So not just the German generals specifically Schlieffen. The Schlieffen plan developed by it's namesake general was the governing document for the German plan of battle at the beginning of WW1. Schlieffen spent his entire life trying to figure…

From what I've been able to find, the importance of invading Belgium had more to do with capturing it's rail network for logistics, than recreating the battle of cannae

I'd argue against that interpretation, the importance of invading Belgium had more to do with avoiding the French line of fortresses and hoping that the Belgians would just roll over than capturing rail networks that they wouldn't be able to use without a protracted war, which they had no anticipation of as they expected to be marching into Paris 900 hours after mobilization was declared.

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#43

Post by AlbertCory »

benbreen wrote: post #8
jprete wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an expert, but I think for World War I the military strategy questions - and in particular the misconceptions - were very relevant to the decision to go to war. My understanding is that the various combatant powers believed that the war would be quick and decisive in the way that prior wars had been; none expected or prepared for a four-year slog of trench warfare, defensive supremacy, or total depletion of w…

Author here - yes, this is what I was getting at. The false promise of a rapid victory over the French via encirclement from the right flank (in the style of Hannibal) really was a major factor in justifying the risks of war for the German General Staff. And because Schlieffen was preoccupied with the idea that an ancient battle could be a model for that approach, it distracted from the now-obvious technological chan…

I think there's something there, and I did enjoy your article. WW I had a lot of causes, at the head of which I'd put the Kaiser's stupidity and weakness.

But yeah, Cannae did (and still does) exert a big influence on military planners.

As others have pointed out, Schlieffen depended on massive luck and adherence to The Plan, neither of which obtained. It was not machine guns that made it fail.

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#45

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

kqr wrote: post #40
ethbr1 wrote: post #22

It's curious how people are responding to the title, rather than the post, which touches on the title but is mostly about another thing: >> There’s something beguiling about the thought that a simple arrangement of lines might explain the world — like seeing human history as an enormous game of Civilization 6. But of course, that’s also the problem with using maps as a way of understanding history. If you’re not care…

I'm reminded of how all models are wrong...

All models are wrong, some are useful. The map is not the territory.

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#46

Post by rawgabbit »

benbreen wrote: post #8
jprete wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an expert, but I think for World War I the military strategy questions - and in particular the misconceptions - were very relevant to the decision to go to war. My understanding is that the various combatant powers believed that the war would be quick and decisive in the way that prior wars had been; none expected or prepared for a four-year slog of trench warfare, defensive supremacy, or total depletion of w…

Author here - yes, this is what I was getting at. The false promise of a rapid victory over the French via encirclement from the right flank (in the style of Hannibal) really was a major factor in justifying the risks of war for the German General Staff. And because Schlieffen was preoccupied with the idea that an ancient battle could be a model for that approach, it distracted from the now-obvious technological chan…

Hmmm. I doubt it was Cannae, it was more of the 1870 Franco Prussian war. The Franco Prussian war lasted only six months. That war destroyed the myth of France's military might (from Napoleon)and created modern Germany. Moltke the Elder became a warrior god in Germany. Schlieffen was tasked on how to solve the problem with a war on two fronts; he expected to knockout France in a quick blow just like in 1870 and turn around and fight the Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#47

Post by dkarl »

ethbr1 wrote: post #22

It's curious how people are responding to the title, rather than the post, which touches on the title but is mostly about another thing: >> There’s something beguiling about the thought that a simple arrangement of lines might explain the world — like seeing human history as an enormous game of Civilization 6. But of course, that’s also the problem with using maps as a way of understanding history. If you’re not care…

The intentions don't just affect the way the data is presented, but can affect the underlying data itself. For example, the "German Claims in Africa" shows vast areas as "German claims" on what must be very shaky justification. The presentation is very clear, but the data is misleading.

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#48

Post by soperj »

jprete wrote: post #6
TSiege wrote: post #2

The argument laid out in this post and in the title around maps, specifically the battle of cannae, leading to world war one is pretty weak. I buy that German generals were obsessed with the battle, but I don't see any evidence here that this caused the war. Going to war is first and foremost a political act even if it is followed by a military response. There's no mention of the complex politics of europe at the tim…

I'm not an expert, but I think for World War I the military strategy questions - and in particular the misconceptions - were very relevant to the decision to go to war. My understanding is that the various combatant powers believed that the war would be quick and decisive in the way that prior wars had been; none expected or prepared for a four-year slog of trench warfare, defensive supremacy, or total depletion of w…

The american civil war was a full 50 years before WWI.

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#49

Post by mighmi »

gustavus wrote: post #9
TSiege wrote: post #2

The argument laid out in this post and in the title around maps, specifically the battle of cannae, leading to world war one is pretty weak. I buy that German generals were obsessed with the battle, but I don't see any evidence here that this caused the war. Going to war is first and foremost a political act even if it is followed by a military response. There's no mention of the complex politics of europe at the tim…

So a couple of points of clarifications > specifically the battle of cannae, leading to world war one is pretty weak. I buy that German generals were obsessed with the battle, So not just the German generals specifically Schlieffen. The Schlieffen plan developed by it's namesake general was the governing document for the German plan of battle at the beginning of WW1. Schlieffen spent his entire life trying to figure…

> The Schlieffen plan developed by it's namesake general

The Schlieefen plan didn't exist.

> The Schlieffen memorandum of 1905, with its 1906 supplement, was not a plan. It was not operational. It did not go into details or issue orders

David Frmokin's Europe's Last Summer

Terence Zuber's Inventing the Schlieefen Plan shows that the "plan" was written in a memorandum at his retirement, which his daughter kept in her family photos (even in August 1914). The memorandum also involved 20 divisions which never existed - 48 corps should have attacked France instead of the actual 34...

The actual plan as described was a one front war against France... From Schlieefen's other writings were Germany at war with France and Russia, he suggested using interior rail lines to lure enemy forces inside, and then counteract by taking their supply lines (the move through Belgium and Northern France), quickly winning the war, which bears only the most superficial resemblance to the war as started.

Mark Humphries and John Maker have gone into more detail on where the actual war plan (as followed) came from, von Moltke's beliefs etc. Even e.g. Gross who has strongly debated Zuber about this agrees that there was no official plan as such, instead arguing that Schlieffen's influence, staff rides etc. planted the seeds of seeing potential victory through such an approach.

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#50

Post by vkou »

benbreen wrote: post #8
jprete wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an expert, but I think for World War I the military strategy questions - and in particular the misconceptions - were very relevant to the decision to go to war. My understanding is that the various combatant powers believed that the war would be quick and decisive in the way that prior wars had been; none expected or prepared for a four-year slog of trench warfare, defensive supremacy, or total depletion of w…

Author here - yes, this is what I was getting at. The false promise of a rapid victory over the French via encirclement from the right flank (in the style of Hannibal) really was a major factor in justifying the risks of war for the German General Staff. And because Schlieffen was preoccupied with the idea that an ancient battle could be a model for that approach, it distracted from the now-obvious technological chan…

Were machine guns really the cause of 'defensive' warfare?

Rolling artillery barrages would send the front-line machinegunners hiding in the trenches. The wave of attackers behind the artillery barrage, when moving quickly had a very good chance of capturing the front line of trenches.

The problem that they would face is that rail-deployed reinforcements on the defender side would pour in as a counter-attack... And those recently-captured front-line trenches were, by design, indefensible from an attack from the rear.

So you'd get lots of bloody attacks, with horrific loss of life, where all the territorial gains made in them would be lost in an equally bloody counter-attack. As a net result, the front is frozen, despite both sides taking turns attacking (And making brief territorial gains, that are immediately reversed).

Artillery and railroads, not machineguns seem to be the major influences, there.

Post reply on HN