What historical battles do you find intersting?

[Trollgaard]

I like the Battle Of The Catalaunian Plains.
Your silly arrows cannot hurt us!

(Image)

The last hurrah of the Western Empire, under last great Roman.

[Sedikal]

Thermopile, everything having to do with the Punic wars.

[Hollorous]

Ditto. The Vietnam War is a very fascinating, often misunderstood conflict.

Honestly, I'd like to read a good book about the Vietnamese War in Cambodia or the Sino-Vietnamese War. There's very little material around for those.

I've always been interested in making a movie or seeing a movie that tells the war from the Vietnamese perspective.

The Vietnamese side is a thousand times more interesting and complex than the usual American anti-Communist crusade.

The Vietnamese have made a bunch, but none of them are subtitled and I can't guarantee any of them are good. There's plenty of them on YouTube. Either learn Vietnamese or not give a shit understanding about the dialogue, I guess.

I doubt such a film would get made by an American studio. Too many potential sources of backlash. "We Were Soldiers" (which gives a bit of screen time to the PAVN and depicts them as just regular people fighting for their government) is about the best you'll get.

Plenty of books available though. "The Sorrow of War" is a favorite of mine.

[Sidhae]

I find the history of warfare in general very interesting.

My latest read is "Tshushima" by A. Novikov-Priboy, based on a compilation of first-hand accounts on the Battle of Tsushima. The author himself participated in the battle and was taken prisoner. Although there is an evident bias in some places (the author being a dedicated Socialist), overall it pretty accurately details the extent of incompetence, stagnation and corruption prevalent in the Imperial Russian Navy and government. Novikov gives very vivid descriptions of incompetence, mismanagement and abuse of power going all the way from the Tsar and his admirals down to petty officers, and accurately assesses the effectively-suicidal nature of the Baltic Fleet's mission that ended in the Straits of Tsushima. He describes routine abuses inflicted upon sailors by their officers, the poor morale and discipline that this leads to, the lack of technical expertise among most of the command staff, generally poor organization, the gross under-training of mostly conscripted crews, an ill-tempered, violent and incompetent admiral, and lastly, the ships themselves being either hopelessly obsolete, poorly designed or improperly equipped for combat. Here and there, Novikov also mentions positive examples of leadership and competence among the commanders whose best efforts were doomed to failure because of the admiral's excessively authoritarian and incompetent leadership style as well as all the above factors.

I'm trying to find a decent book on the land action in the Russo-Japanese war now to supplement what I've learned from "Tsushima". I'm also interested in reading more about other wars in the Far East in early 20th century.

[Farnhamia]

I find the history of warfare in general very interesting.

My latest read is "Tshushima" by A. Novikov-Priboy, based on a compilation of first-hand accounts on the Battle of Tsushima. The author himself participated in the battle and was taken prisoner. Although there is an evident bias in some places (the author being a dedicated Socialist), overall it pretty accurately details the extent of incompetence, stagnation and corruption prevalent in the Imperial Russian Navy and government. Novikov gives very vivid descriptions of incompetence, mismanagement and abuse of power going all the way from the Tsar and his admirals down to petty officers, and accurately assesses the effectively-suicidal nature of the Baltic Fleet's mission that ended in the Straits of Tsushima. He describes routine abuses inflicted upon sailors by their officers, the poor morale and discipline that this leads to, the lack of technical expertise among most of the command staff, generally poor organization, the gross under-training of mostly conscripted crews, an ill-tempered, violent and incompetent admiral, and lastly, the ships themselves being either hopelessly obsolete, poorly designed or improperly equipped for combat. Here and there, Novikov also mentions positive examples of leadership and competence among the commanders whose best efforts were doomed to failure because of the admiral's excessively authoritarian and incompetent leadership style as well as all the above factors.

I'm trying to find a decent book on the land action in the Russo-Japanese war now to supplement what I've learned from "Tsushima". I'm also interested in reading more about other wars in the Far East in early 20th century.

See what the folks at the Russo-Japanese War Research Society think.

[New haven america]

Wrong. Sun Tzu is... Even wrote a book...

Assuming he really existed and that conflicting stories are true.

But there's a book, and Chinese historical fact. But meh

[The Serbian Empire]

The Battle of Valverde in New Mexico is a particularly interesting battle.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

I find the history of warfare in general very interesting.

My latest read is "Tshushima" by A. Novikov-Priboy, based on a compilation of first-hand accounts on the Battle of Tsushima. The author himself participated in the battle and was taken prisoner. Although there is an evident bias in some places (the author being a dedicated Socialist), overall it pretty accurately details the extent of incompetence, stagnation and corruption prevalent in the Imperial Russian Navy and government. Novikov gives very vivid descriptions of incompetence, mismanagement and abuse of power going all the way from the Tsar and his admirals down to petty officers, and accurately assesses the effectively-suicidal nature of the Baltic Fleet's mission that ended in the Straits of Tsushima. He describes routine abuses inflicted upon sailors by their officers, the poor morale and discipline that this leads to, the lack of technical expertise among most of the command staff, generally poor organization, the gross under-training of mostly conscripted crews, an ill-tempered, violent and incompetent admiral, and lastly, the ships themselves being either hopelessly obsolete, poorly designed or improperly equipped for combat. Here and there, Novikov also mentions positive examples of leadership and competence among the commanders whose best efforts were doomed to failure because of the admiral's excessively authoritarian and incompetent leadership style as well as all the above factors.

I'm trying to find a decent book on the land action in the Russo-Japanese war now to supplement what I've learned from "Tsushima". I'm also interested in reading more about other wars in the Far East in early 20th century.

In fairness to the Russians, it's practically a miracle that the Baltic fleet made it to Tsushima in the first place. I believe there's a quote somewhere from admiral Togo praising the determination and perseverance of the Russians (damned if I can find it, though. I need to start saving these things or something.)

One particular standout was the battleship Suvorov, (I think, it was one of the class, anyway.) Despite taking a number of torpedo hits, having its fore turret blown up, and basically being slowly dismembered, the crew stayed at their stations and kept fighting. Despite the fact that almost all of her officers were incapacitated (Wikipedia says a midshipman was in command when she sank,) she managed to put up a fight before going down with all 928 souls.

I seem to recall an old joke along the lines of the Russian soldier being the greatest fighting force on Earth, which is why God created the Russian officer to stop them from taking over the world.

[Dracoria]

Assuming he really existed and that conflicting stories are true.

But there's a book, and Chinese historical fact. But meh

Yes, there is a book. But we're not sure how much of it was written by this 'Sun Tzu', how much was copied from previous works that no longer exist, how much it was edited after his death, when it was first written...

Hell, we don't even really know what century this person lived in.

[Laeriland]

I find the history of warfare in general very interesting.

My latest read is "Tshushima" by A. Novikov-Priboy, based on a compilation of first-hand accounts on the Battle of Tsushima. The author himself participated in the battle and was taken prisoner. Although there is an evident bias in some places (the author being a dedicated Socialist), overall it pretty accurately details the extent of incompetence, stagnation and corruption prevalent in the Imperial Russian Navy and government. Novikov gives very vivid descriptions of incompetence, mismanagement and abuse of power going all the way from the Tsar and his admirals down to petty officers, and accurately assesses the effectively-suicidal nature of the Baltic Fleet's mission that ended in the Straits of Tsushima. He describes routine abuses inflicted upon sailors by their officers, the poor morale and discipline that this leads to, the lack of technical expertise among most of the command staff, generally poor organization, the gross under-training of mostly conscripted crews, an ill-tempered, violent and incompetent admiral, and lastly, the ships themselves being either hopelessly obsolete, poorly designed or improperly equipped for combat. Here and there, Novikov also mentions positive examples of leadership and competence among the commanders whose best efforts were doomed to failure because of the admiral's excessively authoritarian and incompetent leadership style as well as all the above factors.

I'm trying to find a decent book on the land action in the Russo-Japanese war now to supplement what I've learned from "Tsushima". I'm also interested in reading more about other wars in the Far East in early 20th century.

In fairness to the Russians, it's practically a miracle that the Baltic fleet made it to Tsushima in the first place. I believe there's a quote somewhere from admiral Togo praising the determination and perseverance of the Russians (damned if I can find it, though. I need to start saving these things or something.)

One particular standout was the battleship Suvorov, (I think, it was one of the class, anyway.) Despite taking a number of torpedo hits, having its fore turret blown up, and basically being slowly dismembered, the crew stayed at their stations and kept fighting. Despite the fact that almost all of her officers were incapacitated (Wikipedia says a midshipman was in command when she sank,) she managed to put up a fight before going down with all 928 souls.

I seem to recall an old joke along the lines of the Russian soldier being the greatest fighting force on Earth, which is why God created the Russian officer to stop them from taking over the world.

Most likely the Imperator Alexandr III, which was indeed lost with all hands. The Suvurov was also sunk but not before Rozhestevnskii (who's flagship she was) and some of his staff were taken off. Another possible candidate would be the Borodino which sank with one survivor. (Source: Russian and Soviet battleships by Stephen McLaughlin)

[The United Territory of Earth]

The one I had with my neighbor the other day. Crab grass is not my fault...

[Diopolis]

Ninja'd.

I'm sorry but what? I don't understand

I said all of them in the second post.

[The God-Realm]

The battle for our true freedom.

[Lunas Legion]

The battle for our true freedom.

The day we have true freedom is the day everything we know collapses around us.

[Astracarn]

The Scandinavian battles during the early 1800s as a response to Napoleon's conquests.

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

the battle of Rourks Drift, the battle of Stalingrad, the battle for Berlin, the siege of the international (boxer incident in china), all Australian involvement in Vietnam, Gallipoli and the Kokoda track.

[Libertarian California]

American Revolution and American Revolutionary War
Boston Massacre
Battle of Bunker Hill
Battle of Trenton (Washington Crossing the Delaware)
Battle of Saratoga
Battle of Yorktown

French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars
When the French defended their revolutionary republic from Prussian and Austrian invasions
Napoleon's invasion of Russia (not really a single battle, but meh)
Battle of New Orleans (yes this was part of the Napoleonic Wars)

Mexican-American War
Battle of the Alamo
Bear Flag Revolt

American Civil War
Gettysburg

World War II
Iwo Jima
Battle of Berlin
Stalingrad
Okinawa
Guadalcanal

[Third Imperial France]

the ones that we won!

And what nation would you be from?

Hopefully not France?

According to the British historian Niall Ferguson, France has participated in 168 major European wars since 387 BC, out of which they have won 109, drawn 10 and lost 49: this makes France the most successful military power in European history - in terms of number of fought and won.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Arm ... es#History)

In answer to the topic question, besides the obvious Battle of Austerlitz, the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt interests me most. Marshal Davout and his 27,000 men defeated a force of 60,500 Prussian soldiers, all of which happened while Marshal Bernadotte watching; for reasons of spite towards Davout/Napoleon, if I can recall correctly.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

And what nation would you be from?

Hopefully not France?

According to the British historian Niall Ferguson, France has participated in 168 major European wars since 387 BC, out of which they have won 109, drawn 10 and lost 49: this makes France the most successful military power in European history - in terms of number of fought and won.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Arm ... es#History)

In answer to the topic question, besides the obvious Battle of Austerlitz, the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt interests me most. Marshal Davout and his 27,000 men defeated a force of 60,500 Prussian soldiers, all of which happened while Marshal Bernadotte watching; for reasons of spite towards Davout/Napoleon, if I can recall correctly.

Actually, going by Wikipedia's article on major wars of Russia, counting from the defeat of the Mongols, they have a 2% lead on France in terms of wars won (counting the Seven Years War as a victory. It's a tie if you consider it a draw.)

[Third Imperial France]

According to the British historian Niall Ferguson, France has participated in 168 major European wars since 387 BC, out of which they have won 109, drawn 10 and lost 49: this makes France the most successful military power in European history - in terms of number of fought and won.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Arm ... es#History)

In answer to the topic question, besides the obvious Battle of Austerlitz, the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt interests me most. Marshal Davout and his 27,000 men defeated a force of 60,500 Prussian soldiers, all of which happened while Marshal Bernadotte watching; for reasons of spite towards Davout/Napoleon, if I can recall correctly.

Actually, going by Wikipedia's article on major wars of Russia, counting from the defeat of the Mongols, they have a 2% lead on France in terms of wars won (counting the Seven Years War as a victory. It's a tie if you consider it a draw.)

Can you give me a link or a figure?

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Actually, going by Wikipedia's article on major wars of Russia, counting from the defeat of the Mongols, they have a 2% lead on France in terms of wars won (counting the Seven Years War as a victory. It's a tie if you consider it a draw.)

Can you give me a link or a figure?

Of a total of 62 major wars, Russia won 41, lost 13 and had 8 'inconclusive.' That's counting from, as I said, the formation of the Grand Duchy of Moscow up to the fall of the Soviet Union.

I also didn't count the civil war since, while Russia lost that one, they also won it.

[Third Imperial France]

Of a total of 62 major wars, Russia won 41, lost 13 and had 8 'inconclusive.' That's counting from, as I said, the formation of the Grand Duchy of Moscow up to the fall of the Soviet Union.

I also didn't count the civil war since, while Russia lost that one, they also won it.

I'd be more interested in more concrete and realistic statistic. From their existence in the 9th Century to Modern Russia, to be honest. Can't really compare a specific country's time period that happens to have a successful military record (Russia from 1283 to 1992?) to one which has existed since 387 BC to today.

It's basically comparing the military history two relatively old countries, but only pitting little over 700 years of it's record vs. more than 2000 years of the other.

[Anachronous Rex]

Has the movie warn off yet? Or do all teenage boys and armchair generals still yell, "Thermopylae!"

A boring battle, frankly. The second one was better.

[Risottia]

...

#1, Operation Bagration (1944). The masterwork of movement war.
#2, Kursk SDO, Operation Kutuzov, Operation Rumjancev (1943). The art of defense.
#3, Battle of Watling Street (about DCCCXIII aUc). Victory in spite of being outnumbered about 10:1 . "Ignore the racket made by these savages. There are more women than men in their ranks. They are not soldiers - they're not even properly equipped. We've beaten them before and when they see our weapons and feel our spirit, they'll crack. Stick together. Throw the javelins, then push forward: knock them down with your shields and finish them off with your swords. Forget about plunder. Just win and you'll have everything."

[Screensaver]

The Battle of Yavin. 22 X-wings, 8 Y-wings, and 2 R-22 Spearhead starfighters destroyed that Galactic Empire's most powerful weapon and battle station.