?Veni, Vidi, Vici? ? The Historical Battle Aficionados Home.

Ender, I like your logic, mate. Makes perfect sense to this little black duck...

 

Well, after a long day yesterday, my tall glass of Hahn Premium tasted especially good and I though; "Yeah, I'd kill blokes for this, and I'd narrowly avoid casual friendly fire from those big poofy yanks, and I'd be part of an army that hasn't lost a single bloke in Iraq", and then I realised that I'd be just as content drinking it without going through all that effort.

However, as far as logic goes, it will withstand even the most strenuous battering by farraday!

E_S

 

Since when are we poofy?

 

It's an Australian thing;

We are basically very good at self-depreciation, and so we tend to rib everyone a little bit in that same spirit, and so basically we say things like "those poofy Yanks" out of, and I kid you not, respect. It's wierd, and you'd probably understand it best if you spent about 6 months with Aussies. "You big girl" is another thing we use when teasing our mates, for example. So if Aussie soldiers for example supported American troops in a day long battle, and the Americans said they were tired afterwards, we might say, "Tired, are ya, ya big girls!" as a joke.

E_S

 

That's right Ender,

Herodotus's 'histories' are pretty loose. That's why in some circles he is considered the 'father of history'but not the first real historian. Rather, that description belongs to Thucydides

 

....and so basically we say things like "those poofy Yanks" out of, and I kid you not, respect.

Well, better an odd form of respect than no respect at all, I guess.

If you ever spend time in America, though, be VERY careful who you call a "big girl."

 

In relation to the discussion a page back, I don't think the First World War as a whole is forgotten because hey, anyone with a brain would kinda figure out World War 2 is called "World War 2" for a reason. The Western Front is plenty remembered, but I think the Italian Front, the Eastern Front and every other are forgotten.

Basically, the only coverage of the Eastern Front in high school history classes is "the Russians got pwned by the Germans."

 

I was watching THE LAST SAMURAI again. Why not bring up another battle now, since WW1 has run its course.

Suggestion: Discussion on Custers Last Stand/Battle of the Little Bighorn

Why discuss this battle?

Well.....Why not?

 

In addition to the Great War Eastern Front, the Egyptian front is forgotten to most recollections.

Few recall that Commonwealth forces fought the Ottoman Empire to a standstill and surrender more than a week before the ceasefire in France. One likelihood is that the casualty count was generally much smaller (and therefore less memorable) than that on the Western Front. The Eastern Front would have been an exception to that, but the attitude of the Russian high command was typical of that shown to the commoners by nobility - which explains in part why the Revolution got off the ground.

Casualty counts in Palestine, Iraq and the rest of the territory covered by the EEF were a pin-prick compared to the bloodshed on the Western Front. As for the Italian Alps, that aspect of the war got nowhere fast. It threatened the survival of no major partners in either alliance, and although there was some serious fighting, it was contained to a relatively small area of northern Italy. The campaign there was certainly enough to warrant the award of the Pour Le Merite to Erwin Rommel, which was an unusual situation - the Blue Max was normally awarded to higher ranking officers of Prussian heritage and cavalry officers; Rommel was neither.

 

*still waiting for a discussion topic*

 

Everyone in the West talks about the Western Front naturally, since a whole generation of writers and such came out of the trenches with varying degrees of psychological trauma. As for the Russians, they're remember the Great War to Save the Rodina (Did I get the Russian term for WWII correct?)

 

Most Russian references to WW2 I've seen call it the Great Patriotic War. I'm not sure, but I suspect Russians would have historical recollections about the Great War, thought the slant may have, until recently at least, a strong slant towards the communist point of view. I'd guess histories written in Russia of the 1914-17 war would have been highly critical of the czarist regime, and rather praise-worthy of the Bolshevik POV. Then again, any criticism of the czarist running of the war would have been fairly accurate to western points of view - almost everything I've seen about the Battle of Tannenburg regard it as a spectacular example of the incompetency of the Russian military leadership. However, I don't know enough about the 1914-17 Eastern Front to make up my mind whether the Russian commanders were incompetent or just unucky...

 

I'm a big student of military history, myself, though I haven't really touched it at all for the past three years. Thanks to JansonYellowAces for starting this great thread.

So... are we still discussing World War I? I don't know too much about it - I did research on it a couple of years but I don't remember too much. All I remember was that Marne was a great battle, the Germans kicked the Russians' ***, and the Italians and Austrians went back and forth for the longest time. I can't remember any of the actual tactics - just a lot of artillery bombardments followed by infantry crossings, only to see the gains reversed within the next hour. Pretty frustrating.

I also remember that in the initial French campaign, the Germans were rapidly approaching Paris but got sidetracked by a retreating French division and got lured into what became the First Battle of the Marne. Why did Germans get distracted so easily?

Battle of Little Bighorn was a spectacular battle and was the Sioux's (I think that was the tribe) last blow against the American oppressors, but in the long run it wasn't too influential. Chief Sitting Bull still lost the war, and Native American culture and influence declined for decades afterwards. The saddest Native American story, though, has to be that of Chief Tecumseh. He was the most charismatic of the Native American leaders, IMO, and his death for a cause he believed in so fiercely is truly one of the great heroic stories of American history.

 

Lagash and Umma in 2525 BC

What was this battle about? The first known battle of History?


About WW1: this is THE site for WW1.

Some historians say that WW1 and WW2 are a single conflcit with a 20-year gap in the middle. Still WW1 is much more complex that WW2. It was a defensive warfare war run by generals obessed with offensive tactics. Those 4 years changed mankind forever - never again will war be seen as a sport.

That's really not needed.

Btw if there's one WW1 front that it's ALWAYS forgeotten it's the Mesopotamian Front.

 

Battle of Little Bighorn was a spectacular battle and was the Sioux's (I think that was the tribe) last blow against the American oppressors, but in the long run it wasn't too influential.

I would hardly call it spectacular. Custer sees what he thinks is a defenceless Sioux village and attacks. He rides right into a huge gathering of Sioux and Cheyenne warriors and him and his merry band of murderers are slaughtered. Appropiate justice.

 

I don't know why people insist on referring to George Custer as a general. He only ever had his stars on a temporary basis during the Civil War, and returned to his original rank at the end of hostilities. When he was killed at Little Bighorn, Custer held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.

The way I look at it, Custer was an incompetent twit who led his troops into an ambush that should have been avoided. From what I've read, Custer showed the same sort of over-confidence that decimated the British at Isandlwana in 1879.

 

I think the First World War is mostly forgotten is because the French actually managed to hold out against the Germans and that ruins the entire joke

 

Yeah, it kinda seems to be overlooked when the "France always loses/surrenders" joke is made.

 

Especially since the Allied commander in chief was... uh, how do I put this?... FRENCH!

As for other French commanders who lost, well, let's see, we have Napoleon in one corner, who only really started losing after he tried to invade Russia, and then only because the rest of Europe wouldn't stay under the thumb of his cousins and brothers. Napoleon III is another from the last 200 years - gee, those Prussians were just too good for most armies. What do you expect from an army that has a country? Most countries have an army - Prussia was the other way around. And well, from 1939 to 1941, well that was an exercise in failing to modernise the weapons of war to keep up with the times. It didn't help that most of the brilliant military theorists of the time were on the other side. And the French Indo-China campaign was essentially the pre-cursor to America's foray into the region. If the most powerful western army turns tail and gives up out of futility, why would anyone expect a country that had just come out of a world war poorer for the experience to do better?

 

You also have to note that most French bashers don't do it because they've any direct experience with the French, it's because FOXNews told them that France was such-and-such a nation and they believed it. I've yet to find a French basher from the US on these boards who's actually been to France.

E_S

 

I've been to France.

and the French in WW1 almost managed to ***** themselves over by screwing over their combat troops and actually causing them to go on strike. I mean.. damn.

 

it's because FOXNews told them that France was such-and-such a nation and they believed it

//sigh

I've yet to find a French basher from the US on these boards who's actually been to France.

Eh hum.

I've been there twice. I have no problem with the average Frenchman/woman (except in Paris, they're every bit as rude as people say in most cases). The southern French and those in Normandy were exceptionally friendly. Being from New Orleans and being half Cajun French, I got into some good conversations with them.

I am opposed to the policy of the French government.

What gets me is there was little to no mention of the American aid given to them on the 60th Anniversary of the liberation of Paris. Our generals were generous enough to let the French General and their people to ride on the Champs Elysees first before our troops did so in World War II.

It really is a shame that since DeGaulle, our relations have essentially been crap.

I tell you one thing: I will be the FIRST to protest any future shedding of ONE DROP of American blood on their soil were France to get invaded.

My grandfather was injured with a head wound in World War I (yes, my grandfather was born in 1900), and I will be darned if I don't protest if I see another American lose his or her life fighting to free that nation.

 

and the French in WW1 almost managed to ***** themselves over by screwing over their combat troops and actually causing them to go on strike. I mean.. damn.

True, its scary that it happend. They were lucky that the Germans didn't know nor, by chance, attacked the fronts.
Although a part of it has to do with the low morale that the troops had, especially due to the trenches, being in one doesn't seem to be nice.