What historical battles do you find intersting?

[Nazis in Space]

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.

Given that Peter didn't succeed to the throne until over a year after the Berlin raid, and that the original Russian force was driven away until Austrian reinforcements arrived, I think I'm going to maintain that it's a hilariously poor example.

Nevermind the brief occupation already occuring four years into the war, which is in itself a hilariously poor showing of the Franco-Austrian-Russian alliance.

[Meryuma]

The Spanish Civil War interests me the most.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

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.

Given that Peter didn't succeed to the throne until over a year after the Berlin raid, and that the original Russian force was driven away until Austrian reinforcements arrived, I think I'm going to maintain that it's a hilariously poor example.

Nevermind the brief occupation already occuring four years into the war, which is in itself a hilariously poor showing of the Franco-Austrian-Russian alliance.

Elizabeth was terminally ill by that point and expected to die at any time. Saltykov and Apraksin, being key figures of the Russian court, thought it politically wise to withdraw.

Regardless of the brevity of the action, Frederick was outmaneuvered, his local forces failed and his capital was occupied. That's generally what you call a 'massive failure.'

[Ruridova]

Most of them. I wonder quite frequently about what would have changed if, say, the Moors had won Tours-Poitiers(actually, I run this one through my head pretty frequently), or if the Republicans had held onto Spain, or if the Battle of Midway turned out to be a Japanese victory, and so forth.

[Darmen]

Battle of the Bulge and Operation Market Garden.

[Ganos Lao]

Right now I'm on a WotR fix (specifically the lives of Perkin and Lambert), so I'd say the Battle of Stoke Field's what's got my interest these days.

[ShirayukiM]

On the thread of the movie 300, I'll have to admit I never watched it (though I have seen a number of spoofs). I had a tiny interest in Thermopylae before, mostly because numerous other battles have been compared to it (such as the Battle of Wizna); never really followed it up, and as the movie's based on a comic book and I'm not a big fan of movies based on comic books, I just kind of let it pass by.

However, one movie that did get me interested in a battle was Gettysburg (1993). It seemed much more honest about the realities of war, with common soldiers being disconnected from the politicians behind the effort, seemingly minor injuries putting men out of commission, many dying and dead left on the battlefield between charges. It was also best summed up as: Sam Elliot squints. Generals make bad decisions. Lots of people are shot. Robert Lee (Martin Sheen) admits he done fucked it all up, but Confederate supporters fawn over him anyway. Afterward everyone dies.

If you have any interest beyond 300 about Thermopylae, I HUGELY recommend the book Gates of Fire. Simply put, that book is by and far the best book I have ever read; it changed my life and I have reread it only a few dozen times. It is excellent.

I second this recommendation.
The book is simply amazing.
Read it.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

Battle of the Bulge and Operation Market Garden.

ironically the two biggest clusterfucks created by the allies in ww2

[Nazis in Space]

Given that Peter didn't succeed to the throne until over a year after the Berlin raid, and that the original Russian force was driven away until Austrian reinforcements arrived, I think I'm going to maintain that it's a hilariously poor example.

Nevermind the brief occupation already occuring four years into the war, which is in itself a hilariously poor showing of the Franco-Austrian-Russian alliance.

Elizabeth was terminally ill by that point and expected to die at any time. Saltykov and Apraksin, being key figures of the Russian court, thought it politically wise to withdraw.

Regardless of the brevity of the action, Frederick was outmaneuvered, his local forces failed and his capital was occupied. That's generally what you call a 'massive failure.'

Given that the brief loss of the capital didn't exactly have what one would call war-relevant effects, it was a failure in much the same way that losing Moscow to Napoleon was a 'Massive Failure'.

[Lemanrussland]

Battle of the Bulge and Operation Market Garden.

ironically the two biggest clusterfucks created by the allies in ww2

Market Garden yes, but the Battle of the Bulge? The allies were caught off guard at first, but quickly contained the German attack (with Patton's 3rd Army turning 90 degrees and attacking from the south, and Montgomery's forces from the north), and once the weather improved, unleashed their overwhelming air power. The Germans were doomed from the start, perhaps if they had done a little better they could have pinned the allies against the Meuse and exacerbated their supply problems a little more, however there was no real chance of a German victory.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Elizabeth was terminally ill by that point and expected to die at any time. Saltykov and Apraksin, being key figures of the Russian court, thought it politically wise to withdraw.

Regardless of the brevity of the action, Frederick was outmaneuvered, his local forces failed and his capital was occupied. That's generally what you call a 'massive failure.'

Given that the brief loss of the capital didn't exactly have what one would call war-relevant effects, it was a failure in much the same way that losing Moscow to Napoleon was a 'Massive Failure'.

Capturing Berlin was a result of the victories Russia had already won, demonstrating their offensive capability.

Moreover, capturing Moscow resulted in Napoleon's defeat, whereas the Russians were winning when Peter offered Frederick a nice juicy peace deal. Further, Moscow wasn't the capital of Russia when Napoleon occupied it.

[Nazis in Space]

Given that the brief loss of the capital didn't exactly have what one would call war-relevant effects, it was a failure in much the same way that losing Moscow to Napoleon was a 'Massive Failure'.

Capturing Berlin was a result of the victories Russia had already won, demonstrating their offensive capability.

Their and the Austrians', you mean. More Austrians than Russians involved, according to the link you posted yourself. You mean two countries, after four years of warfare, manage to finally occupy the capital of a much, much smaller country for a few days. Wow. What an offensive potential!

Now, granted, the Austrians had already occupied Berlin in 1757, almost exactly three years earlier, a mere year into the war, and actually taking the city despite being outnumbered by the defenders, whereas the Austro-Russian corps outnumbered the defenders 2 : 1 (And the Russians were repelled in their first attempt, when numbers were roughly even). That's rather more impressive, but alas, no more war relevant than the second attempt.

Moreover, capturing Moscow resulted in Napoleon's defeat, whereas the Russians were winning when Peter offered Frederick a nice juicy peace deal.

You mean, again, the Austrians, the French, and the Russians.

Further, Moscow wasn't the capital of Russia when Napoleon occupied it.

Didn't make it any less of a logistical centre with considerable symbolic value - rather like Berlin.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

ironically the two biggest clusterfucks created by the allies in ww2

Market Garden yes, but the Battle of the Bulge? The allies were caught off guard at first, but quickly contained the German attack (with Patton's 3rd Army turning 90 degrees and attacking from the south, and Montgomery's forces from the north), and once the weather improved, unleashed their overwhelming air power. The Germans were doomed from the start, perhaps if they had done a little better they could have pinned the allies against the Meuse and exacerbated their supply problems a little more, however there was no real chance of a German victory.

yes but they had been recieving reports from front line units about strange sights and sounds for weeks before the invasion but the high command decided to ignore them.

[Novaya Tselinoyarsk]

Battle of Stalingrad, I wrote a 20 paged paper and a 30 minute presentation on it for my English class in first year of college.. I was only supposed to write a 8 paged paper and a 10 minute presentation.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Capturing Berlin was a result of the victories Russia had already won, demonstrating their offensive capability.

Their and the Austrians', you mean. More Austrians than Russians involved, according to the link you posted yourself. You mean two countries, after four years of warfare, manage to finally occupy the capital of a much, much smaller country for a few days. Wow. What an offensive potential!

Now, granted, the Austrians had already occupied Berlin in 1757, almost exactly three years earlier, a mere year into the war, and actually taking the city despite being outnumbered by the defenders, whereas the Austro-Russian corps outnumbered the defenders 2 : 1 (And the Russians were repelled in their first attempt, when numbers were roughly even). That's rather more impressive, but alas, no more war relevant than the second attempt.

The Austrians only composed a relatively small number of soldiers at Kunersdorf, and weren't present at all for Gross-Jaegersdorf. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the Prussian army was (supposedly) the best in Europe at the time, and significantly larger than was normal for a state the size of Prussia. There was also the support of the German states on Prussia's side, and the financial support of the UK. Given the state of deterioration which the Russian army was in, it's quite good that they made it to Germany, let alone beat Frederick twice in major battles.

Moreover, capturing Moscow resulted in Napoleon's defeat, whereas the Russians were winning when Peter offered Frederick a nice juicy peace deal.

You mean, again, the Austrians, the French, and the Russians.[/quote]

The Austrians were mostly embarrassing themselves at the time, and the French are another matter. The fact is that Frederick was in the East, and the (again, supposedly) greatest military mind of his age lost to the Russians.

Further, Moscow wasn't the capital of Russia when Napoleon occupied it.

Didn't make it any less of a logistical centre with considerable symbolic value - rather like Berlin.[/quote]

But not, notably, the capital. I would say it was more like Konigsburg, which was occupied by Russia from the start of the war and only returned as a result of Peter's treaty.

[Nazis in Space]

Their and the Austrians', you mean. More Austrians than Russians involved, according to the link you posted yourself. You mean two countries, after four years of warfare, manage to finally occupy the capital of a much, much smaller country for a few days. Wow. What an offensive potential!

Now, granted, the Austrians had already occupied Berlin in 1757, almost exactly three years earlier, a mere year into the war, and actually taking the city despite being outnumbered by the defenders, whereas the Austro-Russian corps outnumbered the defenders 2 : 1 (And the Russians were repelled in their first attempt, when numbers were roughly even). That's rather more impressive, but alas, no more war relevant than the second attempt.

The Austrians only composed a relatively small number of soldiers at Kunersdorf, and weren't present at all for Gross-Jaegersdorf. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the Prussian army was (supposedly) the best in Europe at the time, and significantly larger than was normal for a state the size of Prussia. There was also the support of the German states on Prussia's side, and the financial support of the UK. Given the state of deterioration which the Russian army was in, it's quite good that they made it to Germany, let alone beat Frederick twice in major battles.

I thought we were talking about the brief, second occupation of Berlin?

If you talk about the war as a whole, well, then we've (I'm going by German wiki, it'll have to do) twenty major engagements involving the Austrians, and... Four major engagements involving the Russians. Also ten involving the French, but those rarely involved Prussia, so we'll ignore them.

Now, somewhat shockingly, when Prussia is concentrated on Austria and its German allies (Which just so happened to outnumber Prussia's German allies, your implications nonwithstanding), I think it's only fair to say that Prussian exhaustion from constantly battling it out with the Austrians may make the Russian's job just a tad easier.

As for beating Frederick - the Austrians managed to do that on multiple occasions, too. So what? And Frederick beat the Russians at Zorndorf (Despite being something the Russians never were - outnumbered). Consequently, I kind of fail to see your point.

You mean, again, the Austrians, the French, and the Russians.

The Austrians were mostly embarrassing themselves at the time, and the French are another matter. The fact is that Frederick was in the East, and the (again, supposedly) greatest military mind of his age lost to the Russians.

And again, won as well.

Generally speaking, holding out for seven years despite being consistently outnumbered tends to imply that one is rather more capable than one's opponents, wouldn't you agree?

Didn't make it any less of a logistical centre with considerable symbolic value - rather like Berlin.

But not, notably, the capital. I would say it was more like Konigsburg, which was occupied by Russia from the start of the war and only returned as a result of Peter's treaty.

I kinda question the notion of Königsberg in 1757 having anywhere near the value for Prussia that Moscow had for Russia in 1812. The genuinely valuable areas - most notably Silesia - were the ones the Prussians opted to actually fight for.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

I thought we were talking about the brief, second occupation of Berlin?

The occupation of Berlin was the result of the Russian victories over Frederick the Great.

If you talk about the war as a whole, well, then we've (I'm going by German wiki, it'll have to do) twenty major engagements involving the Austrians, and... Four major engagements involving the Russians. Also ten involving the French, but those rarely involved Prussia, so we'll ignore them.

Now, somewhat shockingly, when Prussia is concentrated on Austria and its German allies (Which just so happened to outnumber Prussia's German allies, your implications nonwithstanding), I think it's only fair to say that Prussian exhaustion from constantly battling it out with the Austrians may make the Russian's job just a tad easier.

As for beating Frederick - the Austrians managed to do that on multiple occasions, too. So what? And Frederick beat the Russians at Zorndorf (Despite being something the Russians never were - outnumbered). Consequently, I kind of fail to see your point.

Gross Jaegersdorf took place in 1757. The Prussians were exhausted only a year into the war?

The Austrians never managed to route Frederick's entire army, as far as I'm aware. And I wouldn't call Zorndorf a victory. Both sides withdrew from the field. Further, the Russian commander wasn't even one of the 'big name' generals of his side.

You mean, again, the Austrians, the French, and the Russians.

The Austrians were mostly embarrassing themselves at the time, and the French are another matter. The fact is that Frederick was in the East, and the (again, supposedly) greatest military mind of his age lost to the Russians.

And again, won as well.

Generally speaking, holding out for seven years despite being consistently outnumbered tends to imply that one is rather more capable than one's opponents, wouldn't you agree?[/quote]

It's a lot easier when you're supplied by the British fleet.

I kinda question the notion of Königsberg in 1757 having anywhere near the value for Prussia that Moscow had for Russia in 1812. The genuinely valuable areas - most notably Silesia - were the ones the Prussians opted to actually fight for.

I'm unfamiliar with 18th century Prussian industrial distribution, but I do know that it was a major arms producer in the 19th century. If you happen to know where Prussia's major foundries, gunpowder manufactories, and arsenals were located, that might be helpful in this matter. Regardless, I wouldn't consider the entire province of Prussia as being a 'minor' thing.
Moscow was certainly important, but Russia's administrative apparatus was located in St. Petersburg, and at that point I believe that the St. Petersburg arsenals were producing more than the Tula ones near Moscow (which I don't think Napoleon ever got around to taking, anyway.)

[SaintB]

The one between comedy, tragedy, stupidity, and intelligence.

[Reggae Magmia]

They're all interesting, but I've always been most interested in the Battle of Gettysburg and the Third Crusade.

[Frisivisia]

Crecy forever changed European warfare and power structure.

[Nazis in Space]

I thought we were talking about the brief, second occupation of Berlin?

The occupation of Berlin was the result of the Russian victories over Frederick the Great.

And Austrian forces lending them a hand so they wouldn't be driven off by its second-rate defending forces.

If you talk about the war as a whole, well, then we've (I'm going by German wiki, it'll have to do) twenty major engagements involving the Austrians, and... Four major engagements involving the Russians. Also ten involving the French, but those rarely involved Prussia, so we'll ignore them.

Now, somewhat shockingly, when Prussia is concentrated on Austria and its German allies (Which just so happened to outnumber Prussia's German allies, your implications nonwithstanding), I think it's only fair to say that Prussian exhaustion from constantly battling it out with the Austrians may make the Russian's job just a tad easier.

As for beating Frederick - the Austrians managed to do that on multiple occasions, too. So what? And Frederick beat the Russians at Zorndorf (Despite being something the Russians never were - outnumbered). Consequently, I kind of fail to see your point.

Gross Jaegersdorf took place in 1757. The Prussians were exhausted only a year into the war?

After having already fought four battles against the Austrians... The Prussians were, incidentally, outnumbered 2 : 1 there. For some reason I'm not overly impressed.

I kinda question the notion of Königsberg in 1757 having anywhere near the value for Prussia that Moscow had for Russia in 1812. The genuinely valuable areas - most notably Silesia - were the ones the Prussians opted to actually fight for.

I'm unfamiliar with 18th century Prussian industrial distribution, but I do know that it was a major arms producer in the 19th century. If you happen to know where Prussia's major foundries, gunpowder manufactories, and arsenals were located, that might be helpful in this matter. Regardless, I wouldn't consider the entire province of Prussia as being a 'minor' thing.
Moscow was certainly important, but Russia's administrative apparatus was located in St. Petersburg, and at that point I believe that the St. Petersburg arsenals were producing more than the Tula ones near Moscow (which I don't think Napoleon ever got around to taking, anyway.)

'bout 20% of the population, but not much in the way of industry - arms manufacturing was centralised around Berlin (Ensuring that firearms could be supplied on an entirely domestic base since the second quarter of the 18th century), and Silesia was heavily industrialised as well. Ostpreußen... Not so much.

[Nazis in Space]

Crecy forever changed European warfare and power structure.

Archers were defeated - more specifically, outright routed and slaughtered - every time they didn't profit from rainfall and particularly incompetent OPFOR commaders, which in turn resulted in them remaining a distinctly english phenomenon, with no-one else showing any interest in them on account of the ludicrously specific circumstances required for them to actually work. So... It didn't change anything about European warfare.

And England eventually lost the series of conflicts with France it had at the time, leaving France to dominate the European continent for the next four centuries. While this was indeed a significant change from France's previous status, I doubt that Crezy is quite the point at which to pin this change.

[Skhrimm]

The Siege of Leningrad

And

The Kokoda Track campaign

[Genivaria]

Crecy forever changed European warfare and power structure.

Archers were defeated - more specifically, outright routed and slaughtered - every time they didn't profit from rainfall and particularly incompetent OPFOR commaders, which in turn resulted in them remaining a distinctly english phenomenon, with no-one else showing any interest in them on account of the ludicrously specific circumstances required for them to actually work. So... It didn't change anything about European warfare.

And England eventually lost the series of conflicts with France it had at the time, leaving France to dominate the European continent for the next four centuries. While this was indeed a significant change from France's previous status, I doubt that Crezy is quite the point at which to pin this change.

Now if you want a real anti-cavalry/nobility/chivalry turning point it might be the development of Pike and Shot tactics used very effectively at the Battle of Pavia.

[Great Houses of Xie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Myeongnyang

That is all.