Italo-ethiopian war 1935-36

Does anyone know where I can find information about this war?

Which planes/tanks(?) did the italians use?
Did the ethiopians have any heavy armament, like planes or artillery?

Thanks.

 

Heres some info. I know its from wikipedia , and that some of it may be inaccurate, but for the most part , I believe that you will get a good portion of the info you are looking for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Ethiopian_War

 

I've always wondered what Ethiopia had that Mussolini wanted so badly that he invaded the country to get it. Aside from the fact that Ethiopia was a sitting duck, of course.

 

Mussolini's goal was to bring to Italy the power and status of the Roman Empire. This involved conquering large bits of land, particularly around the Mediterranean. Besides, colonies meant status in those days.

I find it interesting though on how many levels Mussolini managed to fail in his attempts to make Italy as great as Rome in ancient times. I mean, the Italians could just barely manage to conquer Albania. Albania! :roll:

As an aside, it was a part of Roman culture that conquered lands equalled status for the conqueror (emperor or general). This led to the Romans conquering and occupying many stretches of land that had no real value to them whatsoever - even some that cost them more to occupy than they paid off in taxes, such as Britain!

 

which was practically a vassal state to them anyway. :roll:

But then capturing Britain did net them access to large gold (Wales) and tin (Cornwall) deposits, and (probably more importantly) it secured the coasts of Gaul from invasion.

But, essentially, the occupation of Britain was carried out to secure the Emporer's popularity & therefore his job (and his life)

 

And that last is always an important consideration!

 

Well the poor ethiopeans didnt have much of a chance :cry:

 

They defeated the Italians in 1896.

 

Well you have to remember Roel that it was more even back in those days.

 

Do you mean technologically? Because there are many other factors influencing the chances of winning a battle than just technology. You said they didn't have much of a chance, but this is not necessarily so just because they were an African country defending itself against Europeans.

 

Roel, Mussolini's forces invading Ethiopia had tanks, aircraft, and poison gas, all of which their opponents didn't. Given that the Ethiopians had nothing bigger than rifles to go up against all that firepower, they were badly outclassed. No one has said the Ethiopians lacked courage; that was probably all that they had in abundance.

 

about Italian taking over desperate places , they took lybia in 1911 during
wich there was the first record than I'm aware of planes ( or plane ) used
for military purpose , probably observation .

 

As far as I know they even did one or two bombardment missions....

 

We had that on quiz-section if I'm not totally wrong.

 

The Zulus defeated the British at first during the Zulu War; spears against rifles and artillery.

If you hold the advantages of morale, motivation, leadership, terrain, numbers, supply and so on, the enemy can have Abrams tanks for all you care because you will defeat them. If the Ethiopians had had a significant number of advantages like these, they might well have defeated the Italians with their own rifle-armed troops.

 

In 1896???

 

Read my post *carefully*, Ricky, please; I said "Mussolini's forces". OK?

 

The Zulus won a couple of battles (Isandlwhana and Hlobane) due to poor British leadership in those engagments. That does not change the fact that the British went on to win all the rest of the war's battles, and decisively so, Roel. During the colonial wars, the natives had home field advantage, true enough, but were never able to do more than win the occasional tactical victory. The Europeans's firepower and ability to eventually find commanders who knew their heads from a hole in the ground enabled them to win the wars.

 

Yes, of course. Note that I mentioned "leadership" as one of the factors that might gain one a victory over a technologically superior enemy. Literally any battle is an example of such a factor as long as the technologically inferior army won the day, because even though the reason for the defeat of the superior force is always presented as an excuse, it is in fact a perfectly acceptable reason for a military defeat (or victory for the other side).

People focus on technology too much. Remember that during WW2 the side with the best tanks always lost.

 

If you also look at it closely the Zuluz almost always were outnumbering the British by sometimes 10 to one and even at those you dont know if a guy with a gun and kill 10 attacking Zulus before they get him.