It just surprised me because while they were certainly selective the overall policy was in favor of arming the population and, let’s not forget, training people in the use of those arms.
Was there ever a general a general exemption for party members? I am only aware of those from the 1938 Waffengesetz for certain ranks and offices in the party organizations.
It just seems so odd that they promoted pistols as general badges of authority for people in leadership roles including those who had little practical use for them and then turned around to malign handguns in general.
Its because some animals are more special. Only the elite could be trusted with them.
If you have a government full of secret police willing to kill and torture people who aren’t with the program, is it so hard to imagine they want to limit their access to easy-to-hide weapons?
It isn’t. It’s just that those efforts were aimed at very specific groups. For the majority of the population nothing changed regarding handguns and restrictions on long guns were lifted. You mentioned anti-handgun propaganda aimed at the general population. That’s what I found surprising in the context of their overall policy.
It wasn’t just the Jews who suffered from the Gestapo. Remember there were both underground Anti-Nazi movements, and those that just plain didn’t like them for various reason. It isn’t like EVERY German was a Nazi. Many of them just shut up about it as they gained power. But the Gestapo, who used hand guns to quietly put people down, were also aware that they made great assassination devices. A handgun is what sparked WWI, remember.
I recall seeing vintage political cartoons linking handguns with criminals, much in the way some modern political cartoons demonize either “assault rifles” or hand guns, as in “what do you need THAT for?”
My google fu is week and mostly what I am finding is punditry crap. I wish I could find something to back this up, and not that my memory is plastic and I am mis-remembering.
-Longbows required extensive and continual training. They became a sort of cultural icon, because only “free” English peasants were allowed to use them. French peasants had no similar status.
-The French had a habit of hiring mercenaries to be ground troups, and then undermining their use. At the Battle of Crécy, the mounted troups of Alençon got impatient and charged the English line. In the process, they ran over their hired Genoese crossbowmen and all were mowed down by the English longbow volleys.
-Common sense and good tactics were often overridden by issues of rank and personality.
-The study aithors need to read more history books. I suggest Barbara Tuchman’s “A Distant Mirror.”
[quote=“spejic, post:12, topic:72468”]
The Battle of Halidon Hill isn’t an example of the longbow’s superiority, it’s an example of the absolute advantage holding high ground is in an archery battle.[/quote] The battle of Agincourt is an example of the longbow’s superiority, if you were to look for one of those.
The battle of Hastings should have been an example of both the advantage of high ground in an archery battle and the advantage of longbows, but was neither. It was just an example of tired, weary Jutlandic Norsemen (Angles, Saxons, Jutes) having worse discipline than Norwegian Norsemen (we often call French) after just, within three weeks, having been defeated by, then at Stamford Bridge beaten, some other Norwegian and Anglo-Saxon Norsemen before force-marching to distant Hastings.
Agincourt is another one where the terrain played a large role, however. Archers only work if the cavalry are unable to rapidly engage them.
Of course, one of the big advantages of the longbow vs crossbow is the increased rate of fire, which in turn affects just how fast “rapidly engage” needs to be.
Intriguing idea, that the ruler controlled methods of manufacturing (i.e. the smiths). Crossbow can hypothetically be wielded by peasants with minimal training (cock the bow, put arrow, aim, pull trigger, repeat) whereas longbow require much longer training periods. So due to instability, the rulers are afraid of letting the conscripts keep training with the weapons.
But doesn’t this lead to creation of professional soldiers too, if required training can’t be done over a weekend or two? Back in those days, fighting a war is a part-time thing. Nobles rule, keep their subjects happy and productive, and only when their lord calls will they raise a force. Seems this model would just as much lead to creation of mercenary companies that will do the fighting…
Yes, that is pretty much what happened. Example: the Appenzellers. Stuck on their hill with no natural resources, they became extremely professional soldiers. Appenzellers wore an ear-ring, and smoked strange upside down pipes, so that they could recognise one another in battle (especially if on opposite sides as often happened.)
Until quite recently Appenzell democracy was Athenian - only men had the vote and votes were held in the town square where every man who attended had to wear his sword. When women were given the vote there were complaints that (a) there was no longer room to get everybody in the square so no true democracy any more and (b) married women had always told their husbands how to vote so now they got two votes.
If you get a chance, visit. It is an extraordinary place.
Many of the Italian city-states also provided specialised mercenary troops, e.g. Genova provided archers at the Battle of Lepanto. Companies of mercenaries could also be hired out to protect dignitaries of the Church on their travels.
Iceland has a similar history in re: walruses. They were wiped out in the early Medieval, removing Iceland’s principal source of wealth, but places named for them still exist.
England has no peasantry! Those are sturdy English yeomen!
France also has no peasantry. Those are villains.
And Russia has subhuman, slavic serfs. Everyone else has regular peasants.
I’m only partly joking - this was a big part of the English cultural outlook in the Medieval period.
For a bunch of shaking, spewing volcanoes and glaciers in the arctic ocean, Iceland has a remarkably sturdy and sane society.
And they have neither banks nor malaria? Solid.
they had banks and the economy was heavily based on crazy-large financial institutes. but they got rid of them after the global melt-down, a feat no other modern market economy achieved.
Yes. My point was that Icelandic society has a tendency to do things without thinking of the consequences (over hunting, over fishing, allowing banks to expand uncontrollably.) They have been fortunate so far, but a rollercoaster economy is not pleasant for the ordinary people caught up in it.
