Friday, February 22, 2013

The signature of a teenage king in waiting: 550-year-old hand-written book is signed by Richard III

Description: Description: MailOnline - news, sport, celebrity, science and health stories

Friday, Feb 22 20139PM 37°F12AM37°F5-Day Forecast

The signature of a teenage king in waiting: 550-year-old hand-written book is signed by Richard III and contains his personal motto

  • Rare book belonging to a teenage Richard III will go on public display
  • Richard has signed it and written his motto, 'So much desired'
  • Book contains handwritten chivalric stories and two Canterbury Tales

By Olivia Williams

PUBLISHED:08:27 EST, 22 February 2013| UPDATED:12:43 EST, 22 February 2013

A book that was given to Richard III as a teenager has gone on public display for the first time since it was written 550 years ago.

The signed book is one of only 13 of Richard III's books that is known to still exist. It is especially valuable as he has signed it 'R Gloucester' as he was only the Duke of Gloucester as a young man.

The rare book was rediscovered in a library at Longleat House in Wiltshire.

Description: Description: The book contains tales of chivalry, classical history, and two of the less bawdyCanterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer

Rare manuscript: Richard III's book contains tales of chivalry, classical history, and two of the less bawdy Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer

Description: Description: A rare hand-written book belonging to Richard when he was a teenager has been uncovered at Longleat House in Wiltshire

King Richard III: A hand-written book, believed to be made in York in the 15th century, has been uncovered at Longleat House in Wiltshire

It features a signature by Richard, whose remains were found in a car park in Leicester last year, 527 years after his death.

Books like this containing chivalric tales were given to nobles as part of their education.

Above his signature in the book he wrote the words 'Tant le desieree', which means 'So much desired'.

Historians say the motto was a chivalristic code the young duke might have adopted for tournaments.

Richard, who was the Duke of Gloucester at the time, would have been received it in his early teens.

As the fourth son of the Duke of York, he received the education of a future cleric and was more competent in Latin than most of his peers.

The book has been at Longleat since Thomas Thynne, the First Viscount Weymouth, bought it in 1709 along with several other medieval manuscripts.

Description: Description: One of only 13 surviving books personally owned by Richard III has gone on display for the first time in nearly 550 years after being rediscovered

Signed by Richard III as a teenager: One of only 13 surviving books personally owned by Richard III, which he signed 'R Gloucester' in his role as Duke of Gloucester

THE LIFE OF RICHARD III

Richard was born in 1452 in Northamptonshire, the son of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York.

When Richard's brother Edward IV died in April 1483, he was named as protector of the realm for Edward's son, 12-year-old Edward V, who was too young to rule.

Parliament declared Edward V and his brother illegitimate in June 1483, leaving the way clear for Richard III to take the throne.

The young princes were then kept in The Tower of London, where they were probably killed on Richard's orders.

Richard reigned for only two years - from 1483 to 1485. He became infamous after the death of 'The Princes in the Tower'.

Fighting Henry VII, Richard was killed at the Battle of Bosworth, making him the last English King to be die in battle.

Sources at the time said that Richard's body had been buried in Leicester, but for centuries it went undiscovered.

Archaeologists found his skeleton in a shallow grave in a Leicester car park in 2012.

Dr Kate Harris, curator at Longleat House, said: 'It is a fascinating piece of history. His handwriting is extremely competent, which shows he was highly educated.'

'Within the book are tales of derring-do, as well as classical Greek and Rome.'

'Most of the books of the time were in French and Latin, so this one is unusual.'

Dr Harris is curious as to why Richard signed the book in the middle, instead of at the beginning or at the end, which is more traditional.

'He may have done it as a security measure.

'If you sign your signature at the beginning or end it is easy for somebody else to tear it out.

But you can't tear out a page from the middle of a book.'

Although he has gone down in history as a hunchbacked tyrant, most historians now say that image is fictitious.

Richard's modern day image is down largely to his portrayal by William Shakespeare.

Richard's body, which was found in a shallow grave in a Leicester car park last year, is expected to finally have a proper burial at a tomb in Leicester Catherdal.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282802/550-year-old-hand-written-book-signed-Richard-III-contains-personal-motto.html#ixzz2LfWY9Vr3
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

__._,_.___

Reply via web post

Reply to sender

Reply to group

Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

.

Image006

__,_._,___

Abbott and Costello explain the U.S. unemployment rate?

 

http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2013/02/abbott-and-costello-explain.html

Friday, February 22, 2013

Abbott and Costello explain the U.S. unemployment rate?


If you ever wondered how the unemployment rate goes down when so few jobs are created every month, let Abbott and Costello explain it to you!

Basically, compared to all of the B.S. that's being shoveled by the Obama administration and shill economists about how the economy is improving, the explanation given in this A and C routine makes a lot of sense!

Abbott and Costello explain the unemployment rate!

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 7.9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 14.7%.

COSTELLO: You just said 7.9%.

ABBOTT: 7.9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 7.9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 14.7%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 14.7% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 7.9%.

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 7.9% or 14.7%?

ABBOTT: 7.8% are unemployed. 14.7% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.

COSTELLO: Fair to who?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down.

Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how the current administration gets it to 7.9%. Otherwise it would be 14.7%. Our govt. doesn't want you to read about 14.7% unemployment.

COSTELLO: That would be tough on those running for reelection.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have administration supporters stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like the Economy Czar.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the h--- I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like our current President!

Source: Reader email


The Political Commentator (http://s.tt/1A5bt)


Read more at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2013/02/abbott-and-costello-explain.html#IrDDkV2x2gdp8BOi.99

__._,_.___

How Wars Start

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/02/21/how_wars_start_100568.html

How Wars Start

By Robert Kaplan

Just as Herodotus is the father of history, Thucydides is the father of realism. To understand the geopolitical conflict zones of the 21st century, you must begin with the ancient Greeks. Among the many important lessons Thucydides teaches in his History of the Peloponnesian War is that what starts a war is different from what causes it.

Thucydides chronicles how the Peloponnesian War began in the latter part of the late fifth century B.C. with disputes over the island of Corcyra in northwestern Greece and Potidaea in northeastern Greece. These places were not very strategically crucial in and of themselves. To think that wars must start over important places is to misread Thucydides. Corcyra and Potidaea, among other locales, were only where the Peloponnesian War started; not what caused it. What caused it, he writes in the first book of his eight-book history, was the growth of perceived maritime power in Athens and the alarm that it inspired in Sparta and among Sparta's allies. Places like Corcyra and Potidaea, and the complex alliance systems that they represented, were in and of themselves not worth fighting a war over -- a war that would last more than a quarter century, no less. That didn't matter. They were pretexts.

No one understood this distinction, which was perhaps made first in literature by Thucydides, better than Thucydides' most distinguished translator, the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes writes that a pretext for war over some worthless place "is always an injury received, or pretended to be received." Whereas the "inward motive to hostility is but conjectural; and not of the evidence." In other words, the historian or journalist might find it hard to find literal documentation for the real reasons states go to war; thus, he often must infer them. He often must tease them out of the pattern of events, and still in many cases be forced to speculate.

In applying the wisdom of Thucydides and Hobbes to conflict zones across Asia, a number of insights may be obtained.

The South China Sea conflict, for example, becomes understandable. Here are geographical features which, in their own right, are valuable because of the measureable energy deposits in surrounding waters. They also fall in the path of sea lines of communications vital for access to the Indian Ocean in one direction, and the East China Sea and Sea of Japan in the other, making the South China Sea part of the word's global energy interstate. Nevertheless, let's assume one is somewhat dismissive of these facts and says such specks of dry land in the middle of a great sea are in any case not worth fighting a war over. Thucydides and Hobbes would pronounce him wrong. They would say that it is the perceived rise of Chinese sea power -- and the alarm that it inspires among America's formal allies and de facto allies -- that, in turn, could be the real cause of conflict sometime over the coming decade. Thus, the features in the South China Sea, as important as they might be, would merely be the pretext.

Indeed, nobody would prefer to say they are provoking a conflict because of rising Chinese sea power; rather, they would say they are doing so because of this or that infringement of maritime sovereignty over this or that islet. All the rest might have to be conjectured.

The same is true with the conflict between China and Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea. Even if one argues that these islets are worthless, he or she would miss the point. Rather, the dispute over these islets is a pretext for the rise of Chinese sea power and the fear that it inspires in Japan, helping to ease Japan out of its quasi-pacifistic shell and rediscover nationalism and military power. (And by the way, the rise of Chinese sea power does not mean that China is able to engage the U.S. Navy in fleet-on-fleet battle. It only means, for example, that China can use the placement of warship patrols, along with economic and diplomatic pressure and the staging of protests at home, all together in a series of "combination punches" to undermine the Japanese and other East Asian rivals.)

Then there is North Korea. With a gross domestic product of only that of Latvia or Turkmenistan, it might be assumed to be another worthless piece of real estate. Geography tells a different story. Jutting out from Manchuria, the Korean Peninsula commands all maritime traffic in northeastern China and traps in its armpit the Bohai Sea, home to China's largest offshore oil reserve. China, as I've previously written, favors an economic takeover of the Tumen River region -- where China, North Korea and Russia intersect, with good port facilities fronting Japan. The fate of the northern half of the Korean Peninsula will help determine power relationships throughout northeastern Asia, therefore. Of course, all of this, as Thucydides and Hobbes would say, would have to be inferred, conjectured. North Korea's erratic behavior could start a conflict, but the causes might also lie elsewhere.

India and China have territorial tripwires in the Himalayan foothills, an area which, again, might be judged by some as worthless. But these tripwires become more meaningful as India partially shifts its defense procurements away from confronting Pakistan and towards confronting China. It is doing so because the advance of technology has created a new and claustrophobic strategic geography uniting India and China, with warships, fighter jets and space satellites allowing each country to infringe on the other's battlespace. If a conflict ever does erupt between these two demographic and economic behemoths, it probably will not be because of the specific reasons stated but because of these deeper geographical and technological causes.

As for India and Pakistan, I remember decades ago sitting with a group of journalists in Peshawar, reading about Pakistani and Indian troops confronting each other on the Siachen Glacier in Kashmir, terrain so high the troops had to wear oxygen masks. Could such territory be worth fighting over? Again, the conflicting claims were merely symptomatic of a deeper dispute over the very legitimacy of these states arising out of the partition of the subcontinent in 1947.

Of course, Israel fears for its own survival, were Iran to develop a deployable nuclear bomb. This is a case where the start of a conflict (by the United States, acting as Israel's proxy) may largely overlap with its cause. Nevertheless, Israel has other fears that are less frequently expressed. For example, a nuclear Iran would make every crisis between Israel and Hezbollah, between Israel and Hamas, and between Israel and the West Bank Palestinians more fraught with risk. Israel cannot accept such augmentation of Iranian power. That could signal the real cause of a conflict, were Israel ever able to drag the United States into a war with Iran.

In all these cases, and others, the most profound lesson of Thucydides and Hobbes is to concentrate on what goes unstated in crises, on what can only be deduced. For the genius of analysis lies in quiet deductions, not in the mere parroting of public statements. What starts conflicts is public, and therefore much less interesting -- and less crucial -- than the causes of conflicts, which are not often public.

checkTextResizerCookie('article_body');

Robert D. Kaplan is Chief Geopolitical Analyst at Stratfor, a geopolitical analysis firm, and author of the bestselling new book The Revenge of Geography. Reprinted with permission.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/02/21/how_wars_start_100568.html at February 21, 2013 - 08:58:20 PM CST

Aristotle on Emotion, Intellect, and Reason

Very good piece by Roderick Long on Aristotle's view that Reason is constituted of emotion and intellect working together, as both morality and practical reality require.


D. H. Lawrence once wrote:

     "My great religion is a belief in the blood, the flesh, as being wiser than the intellect. We can go wrong in our minds. But what our blood feels and believes and says, is always true. The intellect is only a bit and a bridle. What do I care about knowledge? All I want is to answer to my blood, direct, without fribbling intervention of mind or moral, or what not."  (Quoted in Brand Blanshard,  Reason and Analysis  (La Salle: Open Court, 1962), p. 47.)

At the other extreme, the Roman philosopher Seneca argued that we should never make a decision on the basis of anger—or any other emotion, for that matter. In his treatise On Anger, Seneca maintained that if anger leads us to make the decision we would have made anyway on the basis of cool reason, then anger is superfluous; and if anger leads us to make a different decision from the one we would have made on the basis of cool reason, then anger is pernicious.

This disagreement between Lawrence and Seneca conceals an underlying agreement: both writers are assuming an opposition between reason and emotion. The idea of such a bifurcation is challenged by Aristotle. For Aristotle, emotions are part of reason; the rational part of the soul is further divided into the intellectual or commanding part, and the emotional or responsive part. Both parts are rational; and both parts are needed to give us a proper sensitivity to the moral nuances of the situations that confront us. Hence the wise person will be both intellectually rational and emotionally rational. Emotional people whose intellectual side is weak tend to be reluctant to accept reasonable constraints on their behavior; they are too aggressive and self-assertive for civilized society—too "Celtic," Aristotle thinks. They answer directly to their blood, without fribbling intervention of mind or moral, and much hewing and smiting ensues. But intellectual people whose emotional side is weak are often too willing to accept unreasonable constraints on their behavior; they lack the thumos, the spirited self-assertiveness, to stand up for themselves, and so are likely to sacrifice nobility for expediency, ending up as the passive subjects of a dictatorship like the ancient Persian Empire. According to Aristotle, feeling less anger than the situation calls for is as much a failure of moral perception as feeling more. Only a full development of both the intellectual and the emotional aspects of our reason can yield an integrated personality fit for freedom and social cooperation. (Aristotle notoriously tries to turn all this into a justification for enslaving Celts and Persians; but let us graciously focus our attention on the Maestro's smart moments, not his dumb ones.)

To see what Aristotle is getting at (in his smart moments), recall the scene in the movie Witness where some Amish farmers, among whom Harrison Ford's character is hiding out, are being harassed and humiliated by local bullies. The bullies are well aware that the Amish, being pacifists, will not use violence even in self-defense; as one Amish farmer explains to Harrison Ford, "it is our way"—to which Ford responds, "well, it's not my way," steps out of the wagon, and gives the bullies a taste of their own medicine, to the immense satisfaction of the audience.

This scene appeals to our emotions; it inclines us toward a rejection of pacifism. Seneca would object that scenes like this are manipulative and dangerous, insofar as they work on our emotional responses rather than offering us a rational argument. But Aristotle might well disagree. No one, he insists, becomes wise or virtuous through rational arguments alone; people's emotional and affective responses need to be trained and habituated as well. Scenes like the one in Witness may serve to educate our sentiments and hone our capacity for moral judgment, by making salient the ethically relevant features of the situation and prompting a salutary exercise of thumos.

If Aristotle is right, then Seneca is wrong; emotional responses can facilitate our moral perceptions rather than either displacing or merely echoing them. But that does not mean that Lawrence is right; Aristotle is not advising us to place blind trust in our gut reactions. Emotions can be mistaken, just as intellect can; as Aristotle puts it, emotions are often like overeager servants, rushing off to carry out our orders without first making sure they've grasped them properly.

--From Dr. Long's article "Thinking Our Anger,"  at

http://c4ss.org/content/17334">http://c4ss.org/content/17334

Thursday, February 21, 2013

New Pics - A Little Comic Relief

 

New ones and they are good.

Ghost Car: 1939 Pontiac

World's only remaining “Ghost Car” headed for auction.

Incredible images of the Plexiglas Pontiac expected to fetch almost $500,000


An extraordinary transparent car is set to fetch as much as $475,000 when it goes up for auction.

Dubbed the “Ghost Car,” it’s a Pontiac Deluxe Six which, bizarrely, has been covered in the see-through Plexiglas.

Built in 1939 by General Motors and chemical company Rohm and Haas at a cost of $25,000, it was the first transparent full-sized car made in America .


Image001

One of a kind: The 1939 motor is a Pontiac Deluxe Six which has been covered in Plexiglas, developed just a few years earlier in 1933

Image002

Innovative: General Motors and chemical company Rohm and Haas built the vehicle for $25,000 - an astronomical price during the 1930s 

Billed as a vision of the future, it was made for the 1939-40 New York World's Fair, where it became a sensation at General Motors' 'Highways and Horizons' pavilion;

And it continues to cause a stir today.

Just two were ever made and this model, which has a three-speed manual transmission, and is thought to be the last of its kind.

It has logged just 86 miles in its lifetime; and now its set to go on sale for the first time since the early 1980s. It last sold for an undisclosed amount. 

American auctioneers RM expect it to sell for between $275,000 and $475,000 when it goes under the hammer on July 30.


Image003

Seventy-two years of wear: The Plexiglas does have some chips and cracks but is mostly in good condition, according to auction notes.


Image004

Not for touring: The collectible is unlikely to be seen on the road

Image005

Transparent: Wires and a spare wheel can be seen through the trunk of the car

A spokesman for RM Auctions said: 'The car is in a remarkable state of preservation.

'It's a testament to the longevity of Plexiglas in an era when automotive plastics tended to self-destruct within a few years.

'Although it has acquired a few chips and cracks, it is structurally sound and cosmetically clear, showing off the Ghost Car's innards as it did in 1939.

'This engine still turns heads as much as it ever did. It is not, obviously, suited for touring but as a unique artifact from automotive and cultural history.'

Image006

Mechanics: The model has an L-head six-cylinder engine, coil spring independent front suspension, live rear axle with semi-elliptic leaf springs, and four-wheel hydraulic drum brakes.

Image007

Turning back the clock: The dial on the 1939 car shows the wear of its 72 years

Image008

At the wheel: The steering wheel features rings of chrome-plated hardware and Pontiac 's insignia in red.


Image009

Artifact: The car has logged just 86 miles in its lifetime; and will to go on sale for the first time since the early 1980s.

The car has was the result of a collaboration between General Motors and Rohm & Haas, who developed the ground-breaking material Plexiglas in 1933.

The material went on to be used in military planes during World War II and then expanded in to signs, lighting, fixtures, trains and other cars.

Rohm & Haas used drawings for the Pontiac four-door Touring Sedan to create an exact replica body out of the transparent acrylic.

It was completed with structural metal underneath, which was given a copper wash, and chrome-plated hardware.


Image010

Sensation: Billed as a vision of the future, the car was made for the 1939-40 New York World's Fair in San Francisco , pictured here.

Image011

Vintage: The Transparent Car, on display at General Motors' 'Highways and Horizons' pavilion in 1939, has continued to cause a stir since its debut

A BRIEF HISTORY ON THE PIONEERING PLEXIGLAS PONTIAC :

  • The collaboration between GM and Rohm & Haas was made for the 1930-1940 World's Fair in San Francisco
  • At a cost of $25,000, it was the first transparent full-sized car to be made in America
  • Two Ghost Cars were made but the 1939-1940 Pontiac Deluxe Six is the only won known to survive
  • It toured the nation's dealerships and went on display at the Smithsonian until 1947, and was subsequently owned by a series of Pennsylvania Pontiac dealers
  • This model has a three-speed transmission, a six-cylinder engine, coil spring independent front suspension, live rear axle with semi-elliptic leaf springs and four-wheel hydraulic drum brakes


Rubber moldings were made in white, as were the car’s tires. The only recent mechanical work has been replacement of the fuel lines.

The model also boasts an L-head six-cylinder engine, coil spring independent front suspension, live rear axle with semi-elliptic leaf springs, and four-wheel hydraulic drum brakes.

According to the GM Heritage Center, a second car, on a Torpedo Eight chassis, was hurriedly constructed for the 1940 Golden Gate Exposition on Treasure Island, a man-made island in San Francisco Bay . 

Once their respective showcases had closed, both 'Plexiglas Pontiacs ,' or 'Ghost Cars' as they were sometimes known, toured the nation’s dealerships. The 1939-40 Deluxe Six is the only one known to survive.

Following the dealership tour, it went on display at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington , D.C. and was reportedly there until 1947. 

It was later owned by a succession of Pennsylvania Pontiac dealers. It appeared at the first annual meet of the new Pontiac-Oakland Club International in 1973 and was purchased by Don Barlup of New Cumberland , Pennsylvania . Barlup commissioned a partial restoration from S&H Pontiac of Harrisburg and sold it to collector Leo Gephart in 1979. 

The current owner’s father purchased it from Gephart in the early 1980s, and it has remained in the same family ever since.

Not surprisingly, it has no conventional vehicle identification number; even the machined boss for the engine number is blank. 

A collection of period photos and other memorabilia accompanies the car, which still turns heads as much as it ever did.

 

 


.

Image012

__,_._,___

Top 10 Bloodiest Battles of World War I

World War I will be remembered as one of the bloodiest wars in human history.  Millions of soldiers died on both sides, and whole generations of young men were wiped out.  Armies were bogged down in impenetrable trenches, resulting in thousands dying in futile assaults against fortified enemies.  The war also introduced new and terrible weapons, such as the machine gun, which made the war even more horrific and bloody.  There are many terrible battles, but this is a list of the worst.

Following the failed Russian invasion of East Prussia, the Russians managed to inflict a defeat on the Germans at Gumbinnen and make a push toward the West.  The Germans quickly moved to consolidate the German Eight Army to halt the Russian advance.  Despite being outnumbered, the Germans, outnumbered by two Russian field armies, managed to inflict a huge defeat on the Russians at Tannenberg, considered by some to be the most lopsided defeat in the war.  The Russians suffered 170,000 casualties to the Germans 12,000, highlighted the ineptitude of the Russian commanders and the ineffectiveness of the Russian army.

9.  Battle of Arras (278,000 total casualties)

By 1917, the Western Front had been at a stalemate for two years.  Many bloody battles, including the slaughterhouses at Verdun and the Somme, had resulted on millions of casualties on both sides, and Europe was growing weary of the war.  The Allied high command needed to break the German lines and advance.  The German army was by now numerically inferior, and a solid victory breaking the German lines could easily end the war.  As a result, a plan was formed to assault the German trenches at the town of Arras, which, combined with a French assault to the South, was hoped would finally break the deadlock on the Western Front and bring about an Allied victory.  The Battle of Arras opened on 9 April, 1917, and initial efforts led to the capture of the strategically important Vimy Ridge by Canadian forces and to major gains by British forces in the center.  However, when the battle closed on 16 May, 1917, the British advance had been halted.  Although tactically a British victory, the battle did not result in the hoped for breakthrough, and was ultimately indecisive.  The British lost 158,000 casualties in the assault, to a German loss of 120,000.

8.  Battle of Gallipoli (473,000 total casualties)

By 1915, the war in the West had bogged down.  Both sides had constructed massive trench networks and were losing men in futile assaults against the fortified positions.  Additionally, the shocking defeat at Tannenberg had put Russia’s back to the wall, risking the Allies losing a valuable contributor to the war effort.  With the casualties mounting, the Allies decided on a gamble; open up a second front.  Sir Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, decided on an attack on the Dardanelles in modern-day Turkey to threaten the Ottoman capital of Constantinople.  The allies hoped the second front would help break the deadlock on the Western Front, and bring relief to the beleaguered Russians by opening up a sea route for resupply.  When initial naval attacks failed, the Allies decided on an amphibious assault to crush the Ottoman army.  The allies believed that the Turks would simply fold up and collapse with minimal casualties (the Ottoman Empire was called the “sick man of Europe” in that time and was viewed as being weak.  However, the exact opposite happened.  The Turkish troops dug in and resisted, stymieing the Allied landings.  The result of this, along with poor planning on the part of Allied commanders, was the Allied troops were bogged down on the beaches and failed to achieve their objectives, and the Gallipoli front eventually bogged down into the same trench warfare as seen on the Western Front as British, Australian and New Zealand forces clashed with the Turks, trying to break out of their beachheads.  The allies ended up losing 220,000 men to the Turks 253,000, and the Ottoman Empire earned a stunning victory.

Side Note: The Gallipoli campaign is said to be the time when Australians and New Zealanders started to see themselves as a separate and unique country from Britain, coming from stories of the bravery of the Australia and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC).

7.  First Battle of the Marnes (483,000 total casualties)

In early September of 1914, the German army had overrun Belgium and was pushing through France, threatening Paris.  British and French forces had already taken heavy casualties trying to stop the Germans, and it seemed that Paris would fall to the German forces.  Desperate to stop the German advance, British and French forces consolidated on the Marnes river, just outside Paris.  The Allies were finally able to halt the German push into France in a counterattack against the Germans by six French field armies and one British army, causing heavy casualties to the German army and forcing them to abandon the Schliffen plan and retreat, in a event that came to be known as the “Miracle on the Marnes”.  Despite the Allied victory, the battle was a costly one; the Allied forces suffered 263,000 casualties, and the Germans 220,000.  Also, the battle forced the Germans to retreat and then consolidated and begin building fortifications, causing the Allies to respond and leading to the bloody trench warfare that would characterize the Western Front.

6.  Serbian Campaign (633,500+ total casualties)

Just about every schoolchild knows that World War I started when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, was assassinated by Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princep.  They also know that shortly thereafter, Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia, causing the Russians to declare war on Austria-Hungary, and then the Germans to declare War on Russia, and then so on and so forth.  The Serbian Campaign opened with the Austrian shelling of Belgrade on July 29, 1914, followed by the military invasion of Serbia on August 12.  Despite being outnumbered, the Serbians managed to blunt the Austrian invasion for most of 1914 and into 1915, when the Germans and Bulgarians joined the Austrians in the effort to conquer Serbia and launched a new offensive, culminated in the Battle of Kosovo in November and December of 1915, where the Serbian army was finally broken and Serbia crushed.  The campaign was horrendously bloody for both sides, with the Austrians, Germans and Bulgarians losing a combined 313,500 casualties, and the Serbians losing over 320,000.

5.  Battle of Passchendaele (848,614 total casualties estimated)


This battle, fought from July to November of 1917, has come to be synonymous with the grinding and bloody misery of trench warfare during World War I.  Also known as the Third Battle of Ypres, the aim of the battle was to breakthrough at the village of Passchendaele in West Flanders, Belgium and outflank and beat back the German Army.  In a series of “bite and hold” operations against the German lines, the Allies sought to wear down the Germans through bloody attrition warfare, culminating in the Canadian Corps taking control of Passchendaele on November 6, 1917, ending the battle.  The conditions during the battle were miserable; both sides suffered horrific casualties, with the British gaining only slender territorial gains for their efforts.  Mud was a constant feature of the shot up landscape, bogging down tanks and even drowning men.  The British Prime Minister of the time, David Lloyd George, used the battle as an example of senseless waste and bad generalship.  The Allies lost a total of 448,614 men to the Germans 400,000.

4.  Battle of Verdun (976,000 total casualties)

As the battle of the Somme was being planned, the Germans staged a massive attack against the French fortress near the town of Verdun-sur-Meuse.  Though the German goal was to capture the town, a much simpler one was even more apparent; simply kill so many French soldiers that it would break the French morale and force them to abandon the fight.  The French, though, stubbornly defended Verdun and inflicted horrific casualties on the Germans, while suffering horrific casualties of their own in return.  Nearly 40 million artillery shells were exchanged during the battle, pock marking the area with craters, some of which are still visible to this day, and popularized the French battle cry “They shall not pass!”.  Verdun came to be for the French and Germans what the Somme was to the British; a symbol of the horrors of war in general, and of the futility of World War I in general.  The French lost some 542,000 casualties, while the Germans lost some 435,000.

3.  Battle of the Somme (1,219,201 total casualties)

One of the two great slaughterhouse battles of World War I, the Somme still rings in the minds of the British as an example of the senseless slaughters of the war.  Planned in 1916, the goal of the battle was to be a massive Anglo-French effort to create a rupture in the German lines that could be exploited with a decisive blow.  The German attack on Verdun, however, forced the Allied commanders to change their plans, and the battle became a primarily British offensive, though the French still contributed significantly.  The British prepared for the offensive with a massive several day artillery barrage on the German lines, which they hoped would damage the German defenses enough to allow British forces to break through.  On the opening day of the battle, they learned that it in fact failed to do so when the British suffered 60,000 casualties in one day; the greatest single day loss of life in the history of the British Army.  Attacks continued all along the Somme area until 13 November, 1916 when the offensive finally petered out.  The battle, though ultimately indecisive as there was no breakthrough, was strategically important to the allies, as it forced the Germans to withdraw 40 miles and later set the stage for the final Allied victory in 1918.  The Allies paid for it dearly, however; the Allies lost a total of 623,906 casualties, including 100 tanks and 782 aircraft.   The Germans lost nearly 600,000 men.

2.  Spring Offensive (1,539,715 total casualties)

Also known as the Ludendorff Offensive or the kaiserschlacht (Kaiser’s battle), the Spring Offensive was launched, as its name suggests, in the Spring of 1918.  Germany’s back was against the wall; the country was suffering from a British blockade of its ports, and it had lost so many men that the German army was having to recruit old men and young boys to fight at the front lines.  In addition, the arrival of thousands of fresh troops from the United States was paving the way for a certain Allied victory.  The German high command knew the only way to win the war was to defeat the Allies with a major offensive before the Americans could be fully deployed.  German general Erich Ludendorff was chosen to plan the offensive, which was launched on 21 May, 1918.  The plan was for a major push against the Somme front held by the British, with three other attacks intended to divert Allied attention from the main push.  It was hoped the attack against the Somme would break the Allied lines, breaking the British army and forcing the Allies to seek armistice terms.  Using fast moving “stormtroopers”, the Germans initially made significant advances, pushing the Allies back and gaining a huge chunk of land in World War I terms.  However, the operation lacked clear goals, and the Germans ended up moving so fast that they were unable to transport enough supplies to maintain the advance.  Also, they failed to provide fast moving units, such as cavalry, to exploit their gains.  The Allies eventually dug in and halted the German advance, ending the offensive with the Germans in a weak position to defend when the final push of the war was made.  The Germans lost over 680,000+ casualties in the push, mostly to the stormtrooper units leading the assaults, while the Allies lost a combined 850,000+.  The attack failed in its goal to break the Allied forces, and combined with fresh American troops, the Allies were ready to make the final assault against the Germans.

Side Note: One of the most famous battles in American military history occurred during the Spring Offensive.  A force of US Marines and infantry engaged the Germans in the Battle of Belleau Wood, stopping a German advance and contributing to the overall defeat of the Spring Offensive.  During the battle, it is said that the Marines fought so fiercely that the Germans began to call them “Teufel Hunden”, which translated into English reveals one of the Marines more famous nicknames; “Devil Dogs”.

1.  Hundred Days Offensive (1,855,369 total casualties)

With the failure of the Spring Offensive, the Germans were left in a weak position, having gained ground that they could not adequately defend and having spent most of their best troops trying to break the Allied lines.  The Allies, on the other hand, were battered but not broken, and had the advantage of thousands of fresh troops from the United States, under the command of General John “Blackjack” Pershing.  The Allied supreme commander at the time, Marshal Ferdinand Foch, decided that the Allies should go back on the offensive, and agreed to a plan proposed by British commander Sir Douglas Haig to attack the weakened German Second Army at Amiens.   The attack, known as the Battle of Amiens, was a success, forcing the Germans to eventually abandon the lines at Amiens.  The Allies launched another series of offensives, including the battles of Second Somme, Second Noyons and Second Arras.  The result was a spectacular success; the German lines were eventually broken and the Germans were forced to retreat back to the Hindenburg Line, a series of defensive works protecting the German homeland.  The Allies then started attacking the Line with a series of offensives directed at achieving final breakthrough.  The weakened, exhausted Germans put up a fight, but were unable to defend the lines, and eventually, the Allies broke through the Hindenburg Line at the Battle of Cambrai.  The Germans eventually sued for peace, and an armistice was signed on November 11, 1918, bringing the bloody battles of World War I to an end.  The Hundred Days offensive was a spectacular success for the Allies, but they paid for it dearly; the Allies lost a total of 1,069,636 casualties, including 127,000 Americans.  The Germans lost 785,733 casualties, but perhaps the greatest loss was the collapse of the German Empire and the crushing peace terms the Germans were later forced to accept.

Side Note: The battles of the Hundred Days Offensive includes the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, which is the first major offensive of World War I to include American forces in a significant capacity.

By Justin Jurek


Read more:
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-bloodiest-battles-of-world-war-i.php#ixzz2LVcTf9LS

__._,_.___

__,_._,___