History Quiz

[Gunny]

When Napoleon Bonaparte sold Lousiana to the young US nation in 1803, France wanted a lot of money, representing more than 150 % of the american GDP.
Lousiana was sold, but USA kept 25% of the total amount.
Why did the USA that ?

To make provision for the payment of claims of citizens of the United States on the government of France, the payment of which was assumed by the United States.

 

[padisha emperor]

To make provision for the payment of claims of citizens of the United States on the government of France, the payment of which was assumed by the United States.

That's not what I read. You may be correct, but that was not the expected answer.

there is an other reason.

Think about the previous history of this time.

 

[Gunny]

The conflict with Spain over boundaries?

 

[Gunny]

The conflict with Spain over boundaries?

Using several resources, I can find only that the US paid approx $15M for the Louisiana Territory, of which $11.5M was actually paid. The remainder was to pay US citizens' claims against France.

If there's another reason, you got me.

 

[padisha emperor]

Using several resources, I can find only that the US paid approx $15M for the Louisiana Territory, of which $11.5M was actually paid. The remainder was to pay US citizens' claims against France.

If there's another reason, you got me.

Well, I read that USA kept 25 % of the amount for "war damagees" for the confrontations between the US and French forces, during the Quasi-War, from 1798 to 1800, most of these confrontations were won by France. For this reason, the USA kept these 25 %.

Well, new question :

In october 1794, the french general Pichegru has the order to invade Netherlands for the French Republic.
January, the 19th, 1795, he did his entrance in Amsterdam. February, the
3rd, the Batavian Republic was created, a sister-republic under domination of France (like the Parthenopeen republic of Napoly, or the cisalpine republic....)

The same month, a french hussards unit in Netherlands did an exceptionnal thing for a light cavalry unit.
It was the first and last time that a cavalry unit did a such thing.

What was this thing ?

 

[USViking]

Well, I read that USA kept 25 % of the amount for "war damagees" for the confrontations between the US and French forces, during the Quasi-War, from 1798 to 1800, most of these confrontations were won by France. For this reason, the USA kept these 25 %.

Well, new question :

In october 1794, the french general Pichegru has the order to invade Netherlands for the French Republic.
January, the 19th, 1795, he did his entrance in Amsterdam. February, the
3rd, the Batavian Republic was created, a sister-republic under domination of France (like the Parthenopeen republic of Napoly, or the cisalpine republic....)

The same month, a french hussards unit in Netherlands did an exceptionnal thing for a light cavalry unit.
It was the first and last time that a cavalry unit did a such thing.

What was this thing ?

I don't like to cut in, but I think GunnyL's
answer should be considered correct- most
or all of the damages he spoke of could
have arisen from the US-French conflict.

Why don't we let him have the next question?

 

[padisha emperor]

I don't like to cut in, but I think GunnyL's
answer should be considered correct- most
or all of the damages he spoke of could
have arisen from the US-French conflict.

Why don't we let him have the next question?

no problem

(the answer of mine was : the capture of a dutch war fleet of 15 war battleships, with 850 navy guns...yes, a hussards unit capture a fleet ! )

open the fire, GunnyL

 

[Gunny]

In 1777, the Battle of Brandywine is significant for introducing this weapon for the first time on any battlefield. What is the weapon, and its significance?

(If that's two questions, just name the weapon.)

 

[padisha emperor]

In 1777, the Battle of Brandywine is significant for introducing this weapon for the first time on any battlefield. What is the weapon, and its significance?

(If that's two questions, just name the weapon.)

Is there not during Brandywine that for the first time, the Star-spangled banner was on a battlefield ?

If you thought to that, it can be considered as a weapon, because the flags were always and are still a junction point, and people prefr to be killed instead of lose the flag, so it make the fighters better.

 

[Gunny]

Is there not during Brandywine that for the first time, the Star-spangled banner was on a battlefield ?

If you thought to that, it can be considered as a weapon, because the flags were always and are still a junction point, and people prefr to be killed instead of lose the flag, so it make the fighters better.

I am speaking of an actual weapon -- revolutionary for its day -- not a metaphoric one.

 

[padisha emperor]

I am speaking of an actual weapon -- revolutionary for its day -- not a metaphoric one.

Well, I have no idea...i also search on google, and read several reports about this battle, but I didn't see any mention of a new weapon.

you got me

 

[Gunny]

Well, I have no idea...i also search on google, and read several reports about this battle, but I didn't see any mention of a new weapon.

you got me

Major Patrick Ferguson (Brit Army) invented the first successful/operational breechloading rifle. Brandywine was the first battle in which an operational breechloader appeared on the battlefield.

The weapon was called "the Ferguson Rifle." (Go figure!)

 

[padisha emperor]

Major Patrick Ferguson (Brit Army) invented the first successful/operational breechloading rifle. Brandywine was the first battle in which an operational breechloader appeared on the battlefield.

The weapon was called "the Ferguson Rifle." (Go figure!)

ok....i look at google to see this rifle


go ahead for a new question

 

[Gunny]

ok....i look at google to see this rifle


go ahead for a new question

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/22/hh22m.htm

 

[USViking]

Major Patrick Ferguson (Brit Army) invented the first successful/operational breechloading rifle. Brandywine was the first battle in which an operational breechloader appeared on the battlefield.

The weapon was called "the Ferguson Rifle." (Go figure!)

Very interesting- I had no idea a breechloading fifle
had been developed that early.

I found this link which thoroughly discussed the Ferguson:

http://johno.myiglou.com/ferguson.htm

(from the link)

Up to the third shot, things go quite smoothly and rapidly - no swabbing the bore, no ramming a bullet down a freshly fired barrel. About the third shot, the screw mechanism begins to clog up. By the fourth shot, the screw breech no longer opens. You'll need to dribble a bit of water on the breech threads to free it up. This happens, no matter how much grease you put on the threads. Fergie has a sensitive touch hole - if you don't clean it after every shot, it will begin to either misfire or hang fire after the 2nd or 3rd shot, and I've noticed that this rifle has some very lengthy hang fires. Click, whoosh, oops, nothing, darn it... start to lower the rifle and BAM! Exercise extreme caution with misfires, it can still go off. So it loads quickly, but if you take full advantage of that fast load, normal black powder maintenance will stop you after a few shots. There is also the flintlock mechanism, and the tray in need of priming. Very easy to get this wrong, especially if you are in a hurry. You can dump 3F powder in the tray and get rid of the 2nd flask, but you usually get slow ignition. Dump in too much, and you get the normal flintlock slow fire: click, sssssssss, pow!...

One hundred military Ferguson rifles were produced, and then shipped to the colonies along with a detachment that Ferguson had trained and led. They engaged in their one and only action at the Battle of Brandywine, one of the bloodiest clashes in the war. Ferguson's detachment was said to have been fairly effective. As there were 100 Ferguson equipped soldiers among the over 30,000 soldiers involved in the battle, they could hardly have had much effect, one way or another. In this battle, Ferguson was wounded. While recuperating, his unit was disbanded, and the rifles put away. The soldiers were issued standard Brown Bess rifles.

Upon recovery, Ferguson was assigned duty in the South, where he was said to have encouraged the destruction of civilian property by his troops, as a way to deprive the enemy of a means to survive. He met his end at the Battle of King's Mountain, Surrounded, he refused to surrender and was shot off of his horse. His cruelty to the locals hadn't exactly made him any friends, either.

And the 100 Ferguson rifles? Only two are known to exist today. What happened to the rest is a matter of some conjecture. Some sources indicate that the rifles were burned because spare parts were not available. Some hint that a cache of priceless rifles may still be buried somewhere in New York. While the Ferguson Rifle was produced in a civilian form in greater numbers, many of which still survive today, the military rifles made for Ferguson's detachment have vanished, save the two in museums...

So why did the British not use the Ferguson?...The most likely explanation...: armies of the time, especially successful ones, tend to be very conservative in equipment. What already works is kept in use, until an enemy comes up with something better. The Ferguson rifle cost upwards of three times as much to produce as the Brown Bess, and the British Army already had a full compliment of those, with a good deal of service life left. Care to go to the House of Commons in 1776 and ask for that sort of money? To replace perfectly good rifles? My dear General, have you taken leave of your senses?...

I also feel that the Ferguson lacked the tactics to put it to full advantage. Rapid fire weapons work best when used in conjunction with mobility, where a small, rapid firing, fast moving force without benefit of fortification can be as effective as a larger conventional force. Such an employment would have been a radical departure from established 18th century tactics, where warfare was generally large army on large army, in a fairly static setting. Mobile warfare would have to wait until the US Civil War, when General John Hunt Morgan equipped fast cavalry with rapid fire Colt revolvers, and employed hit and run tactics to cut the Union supply lines in a manner far out of porportion to the actual size of his forces. The lesson was to be forgotten for another 78 years, until Heinz Guderian studied Morgan's actions carefully, and employed the same tactics in the Ardennes forest in 1940, with similar results. Get behind their fortifications, and cut off their supplies, and the army becomes ineffective. George Patton studied Morgan and Guderian, and did the same in France in 1944, going the other way.

Had the British thought to combine the Ferguson rifle with fast cavalry, lightning warfare could have been conceived in the late 1700's, to deadly effect. What could that have done in the Napoleanic wars? Where the wide open countryside of France proved ideal mobile warfare terrain for Guderian in 1940, and Patton in 1944? We will never know, that scenario was quietly locked in a cellar in New York, in 1778...

 

[padisha emperor]

Get behind their fortifications, and cut off their supplies, and the army becomes ineffective

Napoleon did the same in 1805 : very fast moving, to turn the ennemy : The city of Ulm surrenders when the french turn the city and defeat the supply armies behind Ulm. After, the reddition is only a question of time.

 

[padisha emperor]

well, nobody ask a new question, so i do it :


What were the 2 last french cities free by the allied forces - US and French - , during the WWII ?

(name, and date if it's possible)

 

[USViking]

well, nobody ask a new question, so i do it :


What were the 2 last french cities free by the allied forces - US and French - , during the WWII ?

(name, and date if it's possible)

Calais and Dunkirque (sp?)?

These are located on the part of the French coast
where the English Channel is narrowest.

Pre-D-Day disinformation led the Germans to believe
this area was the the likliest site for the invasion,
and their forces were most heavily concentrated there.

The Allies were able to bypass these port cities,
which were German-held until very late, as were
the UK's Channel Islands.

 

[padisha emperor]

Calais and Dunkirque (sp?)?

These are located on the part of the French coast
where the English Channel is narrowest.

Pre-D-Day disinformation led the Germans to believe
this area was the the likliest site for the invasion,
and their forces were most heavily concentrated there.

The Allies were able to bypass these port cities,
which were German-held until very late, as were
the UK's Channel Islands.

it's not Calais and Dunkerque.

Calais was free in september 1944.

You were not far at all for Dunkerque, it was free in May, the 9th, 1945.

But these are not these 2 cities.

(your idea of cities where germans fought realy hard is the good one to explain this late liberation )

 

[padisha emperor]

well, i give you some hints :

The Germans hold hardly to these cities, cities with a great importance for them. Particularly for the Kriegsmarine.