What historical battles do you find intersting?

[Dracoria]

Revolving turret? Just a couple really big guns instead of an assortment of smaller ones? A protective scheme that relied on a tiny target profile to minimuze armor required? Sure, Monitor had some unresolved issues that had to be corrected in later ships, but that's only because nothing of the sort had been tried yet (no counterweights on turret, poor working conditions in hull, insufficiently protected pilothouse). She was an unpolished experiment built in record time.

The only time I'd have wanted to be on the Virginia would have been when Monitor first came into view and the Virginia's crew was trying to figure out what they were looking at.

When I was in school, and when I visited Newport News with my parents, I learned that the battle was a draw and managed to totally miss how much of a better design the Monitor was. It was only later when I went through a phase of being obsessed with the Civil War and researching it on my own that I realized it was way the hell smaller than the Virginia, and it was really impressive for a ship that size to fight the Virginia to a draw.

Someday I should go back to Newport News since I was obviously too young and ignorant of the Civil War to appreciate it at the time. I think they also just hadn't recovered as much stuff from the Monitor yet. It's been several years since I was there.

Not even a real draw so much as both sides claiming victory and turning away. Both had succeeded to some extent, too; Virginia won a tactical victory by destroying several blockading ships but failed strategically as the blockade held (and was soon reinforced by not only Monitor but one of the other competing ironclad designs); Monitor won a partial victory by holding Virginia back and maintaining the blockade, but Virginia was still afloat and posed a danger, requiring ironclads to remain on call to watch for her.

To make matters worse, both could have pierced the others' armor if firing the proper shot and powder mixes. If I recall, Virginia wasn't carrying her anti-armor shell as they weren't expecting to come up against another armored ship, while Monitor was firing with only half her optimum powder charge because the Federal navy was concerned her guns would explode (they wouldn't).

It's kind of funny how Virginia's few successful rammings caused Ram Mania to spread across the rest of the world, when the damned things were all but useless except against anchored or grounded ships or one's own squadronmates in tight maneuvers.

[Manahakatouki]

Battle of Vimy Ridge is a particular favourite of a Canadian WW1 battle enthusiast like myself...

[Lemanrussland]

Probably my favorite of all time is the Third Battle of Kharkov. Some of the greatest practitioners of maneuver warfare in top form there, particularly Erich von Manstein, who is in my opinion the greatest German general of the 20th century. I don't believe anyone has topped his performance there.

Operation Bagration is also another great battle/campaign from that time period.

Alexander the Great's Siege of Tyre is also a good one, as is the Battle of Thymbram, where Cyrus the Great defeated the armies of Lydia.

[East Vlaricstan]

Bulge, Stalingrad, Kursk, Warsaw, Grozny, Leipzig, Pyramids and Trafalgar.

[The Archregimancy]

Yes, but it was signed by both sides on the 24th of December; Senate ratification was a formality in the circumstances of the day - an important formality, yes, but a foregone conclusion once the American delegation had negotiated and signed the treaty. The Battle of New Orleans still occurred between the signing of the treaty and news of the treaty reaching the United States prior to ratification in February 2015, and in that sense was both pointless and meaningless.

I may have simplified aspects of the process, but the basic point stands.

It was signed by the negotiators, but without ratification by both governments the war would still be considered ongoing. At least, that was the US view on such; the Senate is the body that declared wars and truces. I haven't been able to find whether the negotiators from the US were sent by the Department of State or another organization, but I'm suspecting the former.

This is incorrect, and is actually specified in the preamble of the Treaty itself:

His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America desirous of terminating the war which has unhappily subsisted between the two Countries, and of restoring upon principles of perfect reciprocity, Peace, Friendship, and good Understanding between them, have for that purpose appointed their respective Plenipotentiaries, that is to say, His Britannic Majesty on His part has appointed the Right Honourable James Lord Gambier, late Admiral of the White now Admiral of the Red Squadron of His Majesty's Fleet; Henry Goulburn Esquire, a Member of the Imperial Parliament and Under Secretary of State; and William Adams Esquire, Doctor of Civil Laws: And the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, has appointed John Quincy Adams, James A. Bayard, Henry Clay, Jonathan Russell, and Albert Gallatin, Citizens of the United States; who, after a reciprocal communication of their respective Full Powers, have agreed upon the following Articles.

While the treaty also explicitly states that it only comes into effect with ratification, Senate approval for an early 19th-century treaty where the ambassadors plenipotentiary had been appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate was a formality. An important constitutional formality, but a formality all the same.

This is particularly true in an era before instant communication. The obvious problems involved with communicating the results of negotiation across the Atlantic meant that immediate ceasefires on signing of the treaty were impractical. It would also have severely undermined the basis of early 19th-century treaty negotiations had a government subsequently repudiated a treaty negotiated by ambassadors plenipotentiary; it wouldn't have been wholly unprecedented, but it would have caused significant diplomatic problems for the nascent United States. This is also a result of the lack of instant communication - the inability to rapidly communicate with your peace negotiators meant that most Western governments had to give them full powers to negotiate on their government's behalf, with both parties working from the assumption that subsequent ratification of a signed treaty would then be a formality.

Summed up: the discussion over signing v. ratification is largely an issue of semantics caused by conditions specific to negotiating a trans-Atlantic treaty in Europe in a period pre-dating instant trans-Atlantic communication. The basic point that the Battle of New Orleans was both pointless and meaningless, and had no impact on the outcome of the war, remains valid.

[Czechanada]

I was referring to reality.

Then where did they go?

They still exist through the Orthodox Church.

Secretly trying to reconquer the world, you see.

[Czechanada]

Most battles past 1700 seem to be more boring than the battles of medieval and Renaissance times.

They lack that romance that moments like when Charles Martel's infantry held the line against the seemingly unstoppable Arab cavalry have.

Or the last charge of the Byzantines at the Fall of Constaninople.

And don't forget Dugovic Titusz' famous plunge at the Battle of Belgrade.

[Lyncanestria]

The Battle of Puebla. During the War of French Intervention in Mexico at the city of Puebla, Mexico on 5 May 1862.

The fact that a crude band of militia was able to defeat a superior French army astounds me.

[Uncorrupted and Free]

The Winter War between Russia and Finland and the Battle of Wizna. Search them.

[Czechanada]

The Winter War between Russia and Finland and the Battle of Wizna. Search them.

It's always when Russia has the superior numerical advantage that they lose a war.

When Russia has its back to the wall is when it kicks ass.

[Grand Britannia]

The 6 day war and the Yom Kippur war in general.

[Uncorrupted and Free]

The Winter War between Russia and Finland and the Battle of Wizna. Search them.

It's always when Russia has the superior numerical advantage that they lose a war.

When Russia has its back to the wall is when it kicks ass.

Russia's good at defense. Their offensive is...Meh.

[Fireye]

Winza
Bastogne
Fraustadt
Six-Day War
Kapyong
Imjin River

For the lulz:
Operation Paul Bunyan

[Bralia]

I'm surprised that Operation Overlord, the greatest amphibious assault ever, imo, isn't getting much attention in this thread . . .

[Hollorous]

The Gulf War:

When the modern US military could actually kick some ass.

we can still fight, as long as it's against an actual army, just not insurgents who set of a couple of bombs then go back to hiding in a school.

Clearly the solution is to arm the insurgents with tanks, humvees, gunships, an air force, billions of dollars, and about a dozen european allies. Then there wouldn't be any problems.

[Greed and Death]

The Second Sack of Rome, the weak civilized man falls to the strong man and fails to resist him. How the world works.

[The balkens]

The battle of britain.

[Neo-Assyrian Empire]

Battle of the Somme, Battle of Gettysburg, and the Battle of Moscow during World War II

[Hathradic States]

Vicksburg, Manila Bay, First Somme, Verdun, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kursk, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, Hue City, Grenada, all of the First Gulf War, and Mogadishu.

Grenada, huh? That's not one you hear often.

My dad fought there, so it is of personal interest to me.

[Lazssia]

The Battle Ethandun (or Edington), where King Alfred The Great defeated the Dane Guthrum, ending his invasion and securing Wessex as the last free Anglo-Saxon kingdom in England.

[Hollorous]

The Battle of Quebec (1775). Sequel to the first Battle of Quebec, which was a decisive British victory in the Seven Year War. Many of the participants in that first battle found themselves on opposing sides this time around. Here the norms of the American Revolutionary War are reversed. The American colonists, led by Benedict Arnold, are the marauding invaders. Quebec seems to be easy pickings, for British presence amounts to very little and many Canadian militia men are reluctance to fight. Yet the plucky British defy the odds (including daring travels through enemy occupied forest) and win maybe the greatest defensive victory of the war. It would make a great movie, except who would make it?

[OMGeverynameistaken]

It's always when Russia has the superior numerical advantage that they lose a war.

When Russia has its back to the wall is when it kicks ass.

Russia's good at defense. Their offensive is...Meh.

Tell that to the Prussians.

Somehow, people always forget that it was Russia that kicked Prussia's ass in the Seven Years War. Gross-Jaegersdorf and Kunersdorf always seem to somehow evade mention in the usual history lesson.

And then there was the Crimean War, essentially an entirely defensive war where Russia did little BUT get its ass kicked, despite the stupendous levels of incompetence among the allies.

Most battles past 1700 seem to be more boring than the battles of medieval and Renaissance times.

They lack that romance that moments like when Charles Martel's infantry held the line against the seemingly unstoppable Arab cavalry have.

Or the last charge of the Byzantines at the Fall of Constaninople.

And don't forget Dugovic Titusz' famous plunge at the Battle of Belgrade.

I'd suggest you read up on the life of Charles XII. He's probably the reason kings stopped leading cavalry charges

[Nazis in Space]

Russia's good at defense. Their offensive is...Meh.

Tell that to the Prussians.

Somehow, people always forget that it was Russia that kicked Prussia's ass in the Seven Years War. Gross-Jaegersdorf and Kunersdorf always seem to somehow evade mention in the usual history lesson.

And then there was the Crimean War, essentially an entirely defensive war where Russia did little BUT get its ass kicked, despite the stupendous levels of incompetence among the allies.

Given that Prussia held out against a coalition of Russia, Austria, and France - read, the three biggest boys on the continent - for seven years, I don't think Russia briefly occupying Prussia's capital is a particularly impressive feat. It's kind of like playing musical chairs with three guys and three chairs - and then one of them falls from the chair after sitting down while the other two remain standing, unsure of what to do.

[Lemanrussland]

It's always when Russia has the superior numerical advantage that they lose a war.

When Russia has its back to the wall is when it kicks ass.

Russia's good at defense. Their offensive is...Meh.

Study the later period of WWII, 1944-1945. Some of the offensives the Russians conducted during that time were really great operational feats.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Tell that to the Prussians.

Somehow, people always forget that it was Russia that kicked Prussia's ass in the Seven Years War. Gross-Jaegersdorf and Kunersdorf always seem to somehow evade mention in the usual history lesson.

And then there was the Crimean War, essentially an entirely defensive war where Russia did little BUT get its ass kicked, despite the stupendous levels of incompetence among the allies.

Given that Prussia held out against a coalition of Russia, Austria, and France - read, the three biggest boys on the continent - for seven years, I don't think Russia briefly occupying Prussia's capital is a particularly impressive feat. It's kind of like playing musical chairs with three guys and three chairs - and then one of them falls from the chair after sitting down while the other two remain standing, unsure of what to do.

It was only brief because the Empress Elizabeth died and was succeeded by Peter III, who was completely in love with Frederick the Great. The only reason it wasn't the Six Years War was that Peter was a massive tit. Fortunately, 18th century Russians knew how to deal with incompetent rulers and put his wife on the throne instead.

Considering that the Russians don't appear to have lost a battle during the war, and two of their victories were directly against Frederick himself, I'd say it's fairly impressive.