Prices at the Dawn of the Gasoline Age, Dusk of the Equine

[Pat Holscher]

The size of many of the WWI siege or heavy artillery pieces precluded the use of animal traction.

Australian troops with Mk VI 8=inch Howitzer in a ditch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:8inc ... nDitch.jpg

Additionally, ammunition supply for these monsters would have required many horses and large equipment to transport. Note the narrow gauge railroad used to move ammunition to the guns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fran ... Shells.jpg

German 42 CM Howitzer being moved by Holt tractor:
http://freepages.military.rootsweb.ance ... 0c42CM.jpg

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/42cm_bigbertha.htm

There already existed a shortage of horses and mules, and animals from as far away as Canada, Argentina and the United States were being sent to France just to move the Field Artillery of the Allied Armies.

Had it not been for mechanical traction, including railroads, artillery tractors and trucks, the trench and siege mentality of WWI would not have been possible.

I wonder to what extent heavy artillery was expanded after the introduction of the tractors? It existed before, but I wonder if the numbers jumped up greatly after the tractors.

[Pat Holscher]

By 1918 some of these, like the RR Eagles could withstand hundreds of hours running a full throttle. My own feeling is that WWI contributed more to engine design than any other era. But, it took a long time for many advances to make the transition to mainstream production.

The hundreds of hours at full throttle is truly amazing. I simply never would have guessed that this is how these planes were flown.

I'd have to think that flying any of the WWI aircraft would have been significantly different than later aircraft, given the limited ability to control the speed. Speed would have been a pretty much fixed factor in level flight.

Interesting how you have related combustion engine advances to WWI as well. In thinking on it, it seems that must truly have been the case, but it's a point I don't think I've ever seen made elsewhere.

[JV Puleo]

I do have a bit of a prejudice. I believe that WWI was the pivotal event of the 20th century. Present-day pop-culture/history notwithstanding, I see WWII as the delayed aftermath of WWI. The world after 1918 was so different from that of the early summer of 1914 thats it a wonder more people don't appreciate it but then, the changes were so profound that I suspect most people glossed over them mentally, if they thought about them at all.

jvp

[Pat Holscher]

I do have a bit of a prejudice. I believe that WWI was the pivotal event of the 20th century. Present-day pop-culture/history notwithstanding, I see WWII as the delayed aftermath of WWI. The world after 1918 was so different from that of the early summer of 1914 thats it a wonder more people don't appreciate it but then, the changes were so profound that I suspect most people glossed over them mentally, if they thought about them at all.

jvp

I've wondered about that myself. That is, was World War One, or World War Two the more important event in terms of changing the world, or were both co-equal?

WWI seems to be better remembered in Europe and Canada than in the US. In the US, it almost simply amounts to the introductory chapter to the history of WWII, but that doesn't do it justice.

In terms of wars, I think that World War Two was such a groundbreaking war, in terms of how it was fought, that it defines modern war. Every weapon used currently was used in World War Two in some form, and the war was so global that there is always a WWII analogy for any other conventional, and even some unconventional wars, although sometimes those analogies are pretty strained. A lot of the major weapons systems today have a WWII predecessor that doesn't look visually antiquated, so when we look at battle tanks today, we can look at the tanks of WWII and see that they're part of the same family of weapons.

And of course WWII was filmed in a modern sense.

So all that contributes to WWII staying so fresh in our minds. As does its horrific nature.

But in terms of impact on all sorts of things, I wonder if you aren't very much correct. World War One smashed the old order, and World War Two was a partial sorting out of what became of the shards. A lot of nations prior to World War One had undercurrents of difficulties associated with the movements of people, classes and money that had come about due to industrialization, but the old order kept that from generally breaking out in fanaticism. World War One took the lid off that, and the old order fell. Really radical political groups came up out of it. The Nazis, the Italian Fascists, the Communists, and even the Japanese militarist all came about in the wake of World War One. Had the war not occurred, it seems unlikely that these radical groups would have come into power in the teens and twenties in so many places. World War Two generally did in Western fascism but it took many decades before the Communist would cease to be a problem.

I wouldn't have thought of WWI in terms of technological revolution, although World War Two is often discussed in that fashion, but it would seem there might be something to that too. Certainly the US seems to be a much different place, in many areas, in 1920 as compared to 1910. I know that here, in this county, World War One caused a huge oil boom that virtually created the modern town, where there'd only really been a cow town and rail head before. The building my office is in is a product of that, as it was built during that boom, for an oil company.

[Pat Holscher]

I do have a bit of a prejudice. I believe that WWI was the pivotal event of the 20th century. Present-day pop-culture/history notwithstanding, I see WWII as the delayed aftermath of WWI. The world after 1918 was so different from that of the early summer of 1914 thats it a wonder more people don't appreciate it but then, the changes were so profound that I suspect most people glossed over them mentally, if they thought about them at all.

jvp

This is such an interesting topic, that I thought I might start a new thread on it. Instead, I think I'll post this quote to the old "War Changes Everything" thread (there might be more than one thread with that title) and see what we come up with.

Very interesting.

[Pat Holscher]

Posted in light of recent financial, and beverage, news here in the US:



(Even though I'm baffled by why Europe might want it).

[Trooper]

http://www.budvar.cz/en/web/index.html
Europe has it - and has had it for quite some time...

[Pat Holscher]

http://www.budvar.cz/en/web/index.html
Europe has it - and has had it for quite some time...

I think that's the (arguably) original Bud, with the American Bud, being a Bud recalling the Czech Bud for some reason. Son of Bud, or Bud II, or something.

I'm guessing that Czech Bud isn't a rice beer like US Budweiser is, but I don't know. The rice element of it is the reason that US Bud has that sort of odd taste.

Interesting point though. A person has to wonder if they're will be a sudsy Clash of the Fermented Malt Beverage Titans now that it'll be Belgian Bud and Czech Bud. If that develops we can only hope they meet in Dublin and settle their dispute over a few Harps.

[wkambic]

I do have a bit of a prejudice. I believe that WWI was the pivotal event of the 20th century. Present-day pop-culture/history notwithstanding, I see WWII as the delayed aftermath of WWI. The world after 1918 was so different from that of the early summer of 1914 thats it a wonder more people don't appreciate it but then, the changes were so profound that I suspect most people glossed over them mentally, if they thought about them at all.

jvp

I'd have to agree with you.

WWI, at a minimum:

Proved every military technology that would be used in WWII except for radar and nuclear weapons.

Proved the value of mass media as a propaganda tool.

Proved the value of modern communications as an aid in organizing political movements and surpressing politcal dissent.

Proved the concept of "total war," that being the complete re-organization of society for the purpose of supporting military operations.

Began the process of eroding the distinction between "combatant" and "non-combatant."

Destroyed the moral authority of Western Europe that had for more than a century been the basis for European colonial domination of the "third world."

Destroyed a social and political mileau in Europe that had kept the peace for almost a century with but a few, local interruptions.

Trained large numbers of residents of colonized places in basic military and political skills, allowing them to return home after the war and begin organizing effective resistance to colonial authority.

I'm sure that there other effects I've not listed.

Perhaps one reason we fail to appreciate the magnitude of WWI is that it WAS filmed, but the film technology was primitive and images often come accross as almost "comic opera." Mass formations of goose-stepping soldiers wearing elaborate uniforms and picklehaubs don't evoke fear as much as mirth. That leads to a serious devaluation of the force actually depicted and can lead to errors in judging the performance of senior officers on both sides.

We also, in modern times, fail to understand just how the horrors of WWI played into the social structure of the Western Democracies during the 30s. Rightly or wrongly, the vast bloodletting of the Western Front was widely believed to be the result of serious incompetance by senior military commanders (this opinion is not entirely without foundation). It meant that when the military option should have been considered in dealing with such things as German rearmament or Japanese or Italian military adventurism it was not.

[mnhorse]

The way I heard it from a friend who visted the Czech brewery , is our American brewer started brewing using the the orginal Budweiser formular. This story is the one the Czechs tell American tourists anyway. This bit of legend came to me in the mid 1990s, so it has not an "urban legend" being passed on via the internet.
Richard

[Trooper]

I think Richard has the story about right.
I certainly drank Budvar in the 1960's.
In the history section there is an interesting photograph showing brewery carts/drays, most horse drawn, one ox drawn.
http://www.budvar.cz/en/img/web2/Tiskov ... 0x5169.jpg

The photo enlarges.

[Pat Holscher]

Perhaps one reason we fail to appreciate the magnitude of WWI is that it WAS filmed, but the film technology was primitive and images often come accross as almost "comic opera." Mass formations of goose-stepping soldiers wearing elaborate uniforms and picklehaubs don't evoke fear as much as mirth. That leads to a serious devaluation of the force actually depicted and can lead to errors in judging the performance of senior officers on both sides.

To add to that, a lot of film of that era has been run at the wrong speed over the years, which exaggerates the peculiar appearance of it. Film must have improved a lot between WWI and WWII.

An oddity of WWI, as compared to WWII, is that some of the uniforms, particularly the early uniforms, were odd looking to the modern eye. Americans in the Civil War generally look more modern than some of the more elaborate uniforms worn in early WWI.

[JV Puleo]

Budweiser, the original Czech company, sold the American rights to their name in the 1880s for something like $800. August Busch was aiming at selling his beer to central european immigrants who would recognize the name and no one in the 1880s could visualize an international market for beer. The real Czech beer is sold under its original name everywhere else in the world...I last had it in England while visiting Dusan. I also just learned that the real thing is also sold in the US but under a different name...I also had that earlier this year while on a gun auction trip. Now if I could only remember the name...
JVP

I'm not a beer expert, I just play one on the internet

[selewis]

Budweiser, the original Czech company, sold the American rights to their name in the 1880s for something like $800. August Busch was aiming at selling his beer to central european immigrants who would recognize the name and no one in the 1880s could visualize an international market for beer. The real Czech beer is sold under its original name everywhere else in the world...I last had it in England while visiting Dusan. I also just learned that the real thing is also sold in the US but under a different name...I also had that earlier this year while on a gun auction trip. Now if I could only remember the name...
JVP

I'm not a beer expert, I just play one on the internet

Czechvar. The suspense was killing me- all ten minutes of it- and I just had to look it up.

[wkambic]

Having gone to college for seven years in Milwaukee I do have some sophistication when it comes to beer!!!

First, friends don't let friends drink St. Louie Swill.

Second, ordering beer is a highly civilized art, as the following clip demonstrates:

http://www.joecartoon.com/videos/439-beer_bitch

Third, if I can't get Pilner Urqel I'll just have to drink Sam Adams Boson Lager.

[Todd]

Perhaps one reason we fail to appreciate the magnitude of WWI is that it WAS filmed, but the film technology was primitive and images often come accross as almost "comic opera." Mass formations of goose-stepping soldiers wearing elaborate uniforms and picklehaubs don't evoke fear as much as mirth. That leads to a serious devaluation of the force actually depicted and can lead to errors in judging the performance of senior officers on both sides.

To add to that, a lot of film of that era has been run at the wrong speed over the years, which exaggerates the peculiar appearance of it. Film must have improved a lot between WWI and WWII.

Just to be a stick in the mud, a lot of the odd film-playback effect of hyperactive motion is primarily a change in film camera and projection speeds from those early films. Early film was 16 (some say 18 at times) frames-per-second - when sound was introduced, the frame rate was increased to 24/sec.

In reference to WWI as prelude to later conflict, I'd agree in many ways, though I've thought that in a more widescreen view of human history, 20th century conflicts and trends was primarily a result of the French Revolution. However that discussion would go WAY beyond anything dealing with military equines

[Pat Holscher]

To add to that, a lot of film of that era has been run at the wrong speed over the years, which exaggerates the peculiar appearance of it. Film must have improved a lot between WWI and WWII.

Just to be a stick in the mud, a lot of the odd film-playback effect of hyperactive motion is primarily a change in film camera and projection speeds from those early films. Early film was 16 (some say 18 at times) frames-per-second - when sound was introduced, the frame rate was increased to 24/sec.

To add a bit to that, when this film is played at the correct speed, the jerky motion often disappears and it looks right.

[selewis]

It's funny, but several post WW II generations, whose experience with old movies was limited to seeing them played at the wrong speed, came to associate super rapid motion with slapstick; so much so that when modern movies sought to recreate that feel for an audience they stick with the jerky representation, as was done in Mel Brooks' 'Silent Movie' -to cite just one example of many. Perhaps this learned association has something to do with why all old films played at that speed have a comical feel to them.

When I was very young my father explained the discrepancy, and pointed out that the Buster Keaton I was watching on Saturday mornings wasn't the same thing he saw as a kid. I've always wondered what was so difficult about playing these old films at the proper speed. The error has persisted for quite a while, in fact it has been only very recently that you are starting to see them played at the right speed. Even now it is done wrongly more often than not.

Sandy

[Pat Holscher]

It's funny, but several post WW II generations, whose experience with old movies was limited to seeing them played at the wrong speed, came to associate super rapid motion with slapstick; so much so that when modern movies sought to recreate that feel for an audience they stick with the jerky representation, as was done in Mel Brooks' 'Silent Movie' -to cite just one example of many. Perhaps this learned association has something to do with why all old films played at that speed have a comical feel to them.

When I was very young my father explained the discrepancy, and pointed out that the Buster Keaton I was watching on Saturday mornings wasn't the same thing he saw as a kid. I've always wondered what was so difficult about playing these old films at the proper speed. The error has persisted for quite a while, in fact it has been only very recently that you are starting to see them played at the right speed. Even now it is done wrongly more often than not.

Sandy

Interesting observation. Particularly if we consider that the movie audience of the 30s and 40s wasn't really far removed from those films. So they were not ancient history at the time.

I almost wonder if that phenomenon taps into the nostalgia impulse that seems to always look back on something twenty years prior as quaint and amusing. That same thing gave us "Happy Days" in the 70s (with a 1950s oddly omitting the Korean War and other scary stuff), and "That Seventies Show" recently.

[Joseph Sullivan]

Philip may weigh in here because he went to some trouble to get a projector that would play old cavalry training films at the right speed. That is really the issue, as it is with old recordings as well (they are NOT all 78 rpm, and if played at 78, they sound bad).