What historical battles do you find intersting?

[The Free State of Iowa]

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.

You sir. Are awesome.

[The Archregimancy]

Alas, you gather incorrectly.

The distinguishing feature of the Battle of New Orleans is that it was fought two weeks after the peace treaty ending the War of 1812 (the Treaty of Ghent).

Unfortunately, while the treaty was signed on Christmas Eve 1814, the news didn't cross the Atlantic and reach Louisiana until February 1815, which is how the Americans and British found themselves fighting a spectacularly pointless and meaningless battle in the vicinity of New Orleans in January 1815 even though their governments had ended the war two weeks previously.

The main impact of the Battle of New Orleans was that it turned Andrew Jackson into a military hero.

The link seems to imply that the British were compelled to accept the treaties terms with regard to north america because the war was largely a wash.
And also, I pointed out that if the British had won new orleans it'd have resulted in a drastically different evaluation of the power relationship between UK and US.
The northeastern states may well have ended up in Canada. If not in an illegal continuation of this war, then in a future one spurred by someone in the UK thinking "We can take those guys. We did last time and Ghent robbed us of victory."

That hypothetical extrapolation is a bit of a stretch on all points.

Britain wasn't interested in taking the northeastern states - only in holding the US while it got on with the more serious business of defeating Napoleon.

Changing the result of New Orleans would have had no material impact on the outcome of the war in the short or long term. The peace treaty had already been signed; neither party had any further interest in pursuing the matter given the negative impact on a highly profitable mutual trade.

[Ostroeuropa]

The link seems to imply that the British were compelled to accept the treaties terms with regard to north america because the war was largely a wash.
And also, I pointed out that if the British had won new orleans it'd have resulted in a drastically different evaluation of the power relationship between UK and US.
The northeastern states may well have ended up in Canada. If not in an illegal continuation of this war, then in a future one spurred by someone in the UK thinking "We can take those guys. We did last time and Ghent robbed us of victory."

That hypothetical extrapolation is a bit of a stretch on all points.

Britain wasn't interested in taking the northeastern states - only in holding the US while it got on with the more serious business of defeating Napoleon.

Changing the result of New Orleans would have had no material impact on the outcome of the war in the short or long term. The peace treaty had already been signed; neither party had any further interest in pursuing the matter given the negative impact on a highly profitable mutual trade.

I see. To be honest, i'll admit I got this from a documentary that I can't remember the name of. Which is typically a bad idea.

[Disserbia]

Seeing as History is my major, too many to count. But randomly I've pondered the Battle of Isandlwana of the Anglo-Zulu War. That battle must have been horrifying, as all your modern technology fails you, you die to a proud Zulu warrior and your officers high-tail it out of there and leave their countrymen at the mercy of the victors.

So much this.

[Rio Cana]

The Battle for Cartagena de Indias in present day Colombia.

In 1741. the British put together one of the largest invasion fleets ever seen. It was much larger then the Spanish Armada which had tried to invade the UK. But in the end, they were defeated by a smaller force led by a famous Basque Admiral.

This on the battle -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... _de_Indias

[Dracoria]

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

Had the British won, Maine might have ended up part of Canada. Or so I gather.

Alas, you gather incorrectly.

The distinguishing feature of the Battle of New Orleans is that it was fought two weeks after the peace treaty ending the War of 1812 (the Treaty of Ghent).

Unfortunately, while the treaty was signed on Christmas Eve 1814, the news didn't cross the Atlantic and reach Louisiana until February 1815, which is how the Americans and British found themselves fighting a spectacularly pointless and meaningless battle in the vicinity of New Orleans in January 1815 even though their governments had ended the war two weeks previously.

The main impact of the Battle of New Orleans was that it turned Andrew Jackson into a military hero.

The Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the British on December 30th 1814, but due to slow travel was not ratified by the US Senate until February 16th 1815 (it was a unanimous decision in the Senate that took little time to agree upon) and the treaty was proclaimed two days later.

[SeeAll]

The ones where people died.

[ShirayukiM]

The Battle of Thermopylae.
The Battle of Marathon
The Battle of Salamis.

[The Republic of Libertad]

i like the battle of Stalingead, where the city was seigned and the Soviets still over came the Germans. The Germans lost 30,000 people and the Soviets lost about 1.5 million.

[National Socialists of America]

Siege of Leningrad.

[Nazis in Space]

The ones where people died.

A hundred thousand years worth of hilarity, so to speak.

[Dracoria]

Siege of Petersburg, just because it seems to me to be a microcosm of the war. A good idea ruined by shitty generalship.

Not to mention a 50-year-early sneak peek of WWI.

[Dracoria]

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.

[The Archregimancy]

Alas, you gather incorrectly.

The distinguishing feature of the Battle of New Orleans is that it was fought two weeks after the peace treaty ending the War of 1812 (the Treaty of Ghent).

Unfortunately, while the treaty was signed on Christmas Eve 1814, the news didn't cross the Atlantic and reach Louisiana until February 1815, which is how the Americans and British found themselves fighting a spectacularly pointless and meaningless battle in the vicinity of New Orleans in January 1815 even though their governments had ended the war two weeks previously.

The main impact of the Battle of New Orleans was that it turned Andrew Jackson into a military hero.

The Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the British on December 30th 1814, but due to slow travel was not ratified by the US Senate until February 16th 1815 (it was a unanimous decision in the Senate that took little time to agree upon) and the treaty was proclaimed two days later.

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.

[Cameroi]

none of them. seriously, battles are not my thing.

technological innovations that enhance the quality of life, without doing so to the detriment of the natural environment, and its contribution to life and mental well being, THOSE are the kinds of things that interest me.

chivalry has always been a fantasy. not that there hasn't at times been rediculous seeming formality, but nobody fights nice when they're trying to kill each other.
not any nicer then their concept of warrior's honor, if that.

[Ensiferum]

The Battle of Prague in 1648. If ya can't beat em, loot em

[Dracoria]

The Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the British on December 30th 1814, but due to slow travel was not ratified by the US Senate until February 16th 1815 (it was a unanimous decision in the Senate that took little time to agree upon) and the treaty was proclaimed two days later.

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. At any rate, as far as I can find peace wasn't proclaimed until February 18th. Several British units that had been brought news of the signing of the treaty postponed or delayed attacks, only withdrawing when news of the ratification followed (New Orleans wasn't the last British attack of the war, after all).

[The UK in Exile]

the battle of dien bien phu

[OMGeverynameistaken]

If anybody's familiar with Suvorov's campaign in Italy, they might be famliar with the Battle of Devil's Bridge, which I believe may win the award for 'Narrowest Battle of the Napoleonic Wars."



Pursuing the retreating French, Suvorov's troops came upon the destroyed Devil's Bridge and, rather than doing what some pansy army would and wait for some stonemasons, they chucked a few planks across and attacked. Certainly keeping with Suvorov's aggressive tactics. Sadly (for everybody but the French,) political machination saw to it that Suvorov was unable to end the Napoleonic Wars a decade in advance.

I'd link all of Suvorov's battles here, but that would take a while.

[Calenhardon]

The Seven Days, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Verdun, the Somme, Stalingrad, Monte Cassino, Market-Garden, Leyte Gulf/Samar, Berlin.

Generally, battles of great significance, great stupidity, and frequently both.

[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.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

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.

[Strykla]

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.

[Densaner]

Cannae - The Romans got their asses handed to them (literally).
Tours - The future of Europe hinged on this battle.
Teutoburg Forest - Another catastrophic Roman defeat.
Stalingrad - Epic, just epic.
Antietam - A horrific bloodbath.
Bannockburn - I'm Scottish.
Somme -
Burning of Washington DC - I've always liked the story of British soldiers sitting in the White House. Eating the President's dinner. Trashing the place and then burning it to the ground.
St Nazaire Raid - Amazing story of British Commandos kicking the crap out of the Nazis in a surprise attack.
Napoleon's Invasion of Russia - The word calamity springs to mind.

[The Marxist State]

Guilford Courthouse because of its proximity to where I live. And because even thought it was a victory for the British it caused huge losses and actually could be considered the beginning of the end for them.

I actually also find Grenada and Panama interesting.