Napoleons coup was nothing about to get rid of absolute monarchy. What i meant is that the people had the revolution to get rid of it before napoleon. But then he came.Yes, that is true. Napoleon's rise was similar to that of Hitler and Mussolini, however Napoleon himself was obviously not at all like those men. Desperate times will unite a people behind a strong leader if they believe that that leader can restore their nation. It's happened many times, and will continue to happen.
So stupid, so weird.
For me personally, it would have to be the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), followed closely by the Seven Years' War (1736-1763) and the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748).All very interesting! I feel like the War of Spanish Succession also falls into the same category of the ones that you listed. Conflicts today just don't have that whole arbitrary monarchical aspect to them. Although now, we've just devised even more trivial reasons for fighting.
Napoleon's rise was similar to that of Hitler and Mussolini...
...mostly by Alexander who wasn't Greek...
Mind completely blown!...mostly by Alexander who wasn't Greek...
Macedonian were consider Greeks. Not just Hellenic, either, but proper Greek.
Well, I see it's impossible to have a discussion without condescension. I bet you're a ton of fun at parties.
Well, I see it's impossible to have a discussion without condescension. I bet you're a ton of fun at parties.
I never implied that I assumed you to be inferior in some way, I simply stated I felt you were wrong and your comparison was no good. That's not condescension, that's just disagreement. If you think your argument was correct, defend it; don't merely try to dismiss mine by insulting me.
You know, I've had it with these forums. Every single person I attempt to engage in discussion becomes defensive at the slightest criticism or disagreement and starts throwing lazy and impotent attacks like condescending or elitist or pretentious and other insults that don't really mean anything any more, or they claim their opponent is being overly aggressive or uncivil or otherwise do their best to distract from the actual argument. Frankly, if you regarded my posts as uncivil, you unfortunately must have thin skin indeed.
Anyway, I'll go back to being tons of fun at parties, which am I by the way. Mainly because I don't ruin perfectly civil discourse by pretending to be offended. Also because I'm super handsome, charming, witty and I shred a mean a lick. It's mostly the discourse thing, though.
Well, I see it's impossible to have a discussion without condescension. I bet you're a ton of fun at parties.
There is no point arguing with him, he just discredits everything you say and says everything he tells is correct. Yet he fails to realise its quite annoying and makes it difficult to have a 'civil' discussion. Aaand then he thinks you're just hotheaded when you get annoyed.Well ofcourse it's difficult to have a civil discussion because he comes in, states something and people take it personal and start complaining. Docm is very respected and he knows alot. He doesn't discredit everything you say he just corrects you. People are just to stubborn to admit they were wrong at something.
Either way, no offense to you Docm, you know what you're talking about... However you may want to think about taking the other person's part of the discussion into consideration instead of dismissing it as horseshit.
Civil discourse would go along the lines of "Actually, I think you're off the mark with that comparison. In reality, Hitler and Napoleon...", not "You're completely and utterly incorrect." (which is not the case)
Anyways, I suppose I'm not used to your "style" and apologize for the personal jab, which is pretty meaningless (after a few seconds of thought) considering I don't really know you at all.
I still think there are relevant comparisons. Of course it is obvious that Hitler and Napoleon were different in nearly every way. Especially with Napoleon declaring France the home of the Jews ;). Still, they were both extremely powerful rulers of rapidly expanding nations. They share that in common, and other similarities are bound to follow.
'
It always surprised Riddlez on how the 'Godd vs. Bad' idea in wars nearly always is there:Correct. However I think that two examples of the clear boundary between good and bad is hardly sufficient to make an argument that it is "nearly always" present. Two reluctant conflicts out of thousands of wars.
WW1: Clearly, Germany and allies = bad, rest: Good
WW2, exact same thing.
Vietnam: well, kinda obvious
Modern afghan war, too obvious
Though, with the ACW and the NW, there seems quite the lack of it, Napoleon isn't really viewed as bad. Nor are the confederates in the ACW, no?
It always surprised Riddlez on how the 'Godd vs. Bad' idea in wars nearly always is there:
WW1: Clearly, Germany and allies = bad, rest: Good
WW2, exact same thing.
Vietnam: well, kinda obvious
Modern afghan war, too obvious
Though, with the ACW and the NW, there seems quite the lack of it, Napoleon isn't really viewed as bad. Nor are the confederates in the ACW, no?
There is never a good or a bad, its just different perspectives of events. Anyone who tells you a certain side is bad or evil is incredibly narrow-minded.
WW1: Clearly, Germany and allies = bad, rest: Good
There is never a good or a bad, its just different perspectives of events. Anyone who tells you a certain side is bad or evil is incredibly narrow-minded.
Indeed, But Riddlez never suggested as such.
The Entente did not kill the Archduke, that was a pan-slavic group, located in Serbia. The Russians simply answered their Slavic brethren's call for help against the Austrians, and through a chain of secret alliances, France and Britain were dragged into the war. It was interesting, because apparently most Austrians didn't even really know/care about Ferdinand. Most people believe that the Austrians just used the assassination as an excuse to take Serbia, even though the Serbians weren't actually directly involved.WW1: Clearly, Germany and allies = bad, rest: Good
I might be (probably am, history isn't really my strong point) wrong, but from what I learned in school, there wasn't really a bad or good side in WW1. Sure the central powers declared war first but the entente side was the one that assassinated Franz Ferdinand. I was under the impression that WW1 was more of a "this is what happens when you have big alliances of very nationalist empires" kind of thing.
DISCLAIMER: I make no claims of historical genius, I'm likely wrong :P
Britian and France had no alliances. Germany declared war on France and Britian declared war on Germany because they invaded neutral Belgium.The Entente did not kill the Archduke, that was a pan-slavic group, located in Serbia. The Russians simply answered their Slavic brethren's call for help against the Austrians, and through a chain of secret alliances, France and Britain were dragged into the war. It was interesting, because apparently most Austrians didn't even really know/care about Ferdinand. Most people believe that the Austrians just used the assassination as an excuse to take Serbia, even though the Serbians weren't actually directly involved.WW1: Clearly, Germany and allies = bad, rest: Good
I might be (probably am, history isn't really my strong point) wrong, but from what I learned in school, there wasn't really a bad or good side in WW1. Sure the central powers declared war first but the entente side was the one that assassinated Franz Ferdinand. I was under the impression that WW1 was more of a "this is what happens when you have big alliances of very nationalist empires" kind of thing.
DISCLAIMER: I make no claims of historical genius, I'm likely wrong :P
Germany declaring war on Belgium was only part of the reason why UK decided to go to war on August the first, only 5 days after Austria declared war on Serbia and only 3 (?) after Germany went to war with Russia.Germany declared war on Belgium because we didn't allow them to move their troops.
Also you said UK AND France, whereas both clearly had alliances.
Well yes i explained briefly why UK went to war, there were several long term causes that pushed UK to war, Belgium was only the most immediate cause. If there weren't any other reasons the UK wouldn't bother to help Belgium. Well thats my hypothesis, and is quite logical according to me.Not really because since belgium gained independance France and United Kingdom signed a treaty to protect Belgium's neutrallity. Surely there were other reasons. But Britian would've still helped.
The Entente Cordiale was signed in 1904 between Britain and France. That was solely to settle colonial disputes between the two nations. I do not know of any military alliance involved in those agreements. The British and French both said officially that the agreement was not an "alliance" but more of a frame of mind, a progressive stance on their relationship. However, there were many who believed that this new friendship sort of meant the same thing as a military alliance.
Besides, it's really the only war where I can, unbiased, say Sweden kicked some serious continental ass from beginning to end.
Aha. Unbiased. Sure. :PSpoilerJust kidding. I don't know a lot about the thirty years war but apparently Sweden did kick some butt.[close]
The causes of The Great War are always made out to be ambiguous, but they are actually fairly easy to understand. Germany was belligerent. When large military powers become aggressive, other large military powers ally. When you throw in imperialistic competition, the effects are amplified. And then there are slightly weaker powers that of course leech off of the strong, belligerent ones, hoping to make gains for themselves (i.e. Italy). That would be how I'd explain it to a class of middle school students, but there aren't many if, ands, or buts about the causes. Belgium was the tipping point for the British, and the reason why they decided to enter the war, but I'd be willing to bet my life that they would have joined the war within months, maybe weeks even if Belgium was left alone. There were talks in Germany about invading through Switzerland rather than Belgium, so this scenario could have easily occurred.
Yes, I did not mean to say it was all Germany. The British were selfish, afraid to lose their precious colonies. They did everything they could to stop the Germans from advancing. The Germans still held French territory, so I don't know if you would consider the French as selfish for just wanting to get their land back, although perhaps their hatred of the Germans fueled a thirst for revenge. The Entente isolated Germany and wanted to restrict its growth, so Germany became more aggressive in response. It was a combination of fear and greed on both sides that drew the line in the sand, and I did not mean to suggest otherwise.The causes of The Great War are always made out to be ambiguous, but they are actually fairly easy to understand. Germany was belligerent. When large military powers become aggressive, other large military powers ally. When you throw in imperialistic competition, the effects are amplified. And then there are slightly weaker powers that of course leech off of the strong, belligerent ones, hoping to make gains for themselves (i.e. Italy). That would be how I'd explain it to a class of middle school students, but there aren't many if, ands, or buts about the causes. Belgium was the tipping point for the British, and the reason why they decided to enter the war, but I'd be willing to bet my life that they would have joined the war within months, maybe weeks even if Belgium was left alone. There were talks in Germany about invading through Switzerland rather than Belgium, so this scenario could have easily occurred.
The Germans did not instigate world war 1 - that's a ridiculous thing to say. Every major power had a large part in starting the war, and the true reasons were not to stay German imperial expansion; each power had their own selfish reason for entering the war. Certainly Germany did have a large part in it, but not any more than any other power. You have to remember that at this time Germany was almost diplomatically isolated, so they didn't have much bargaining room to get what they wanted peacefully. On thw other hand France was very near to being thirsty for another war with Germany after 50 years of humiliation
Very well put. Ah, the Treaty of Versailles! If only the Central Powers were actually able to participate in the peace talks, perhaps the rise of fascism would not have ever been necessary.
Very well put. Ah, the Treaty of Versailles! If only the Central Powers were actually able to participate in the peace talks, perhaps the rise of fascism would not have ever been necessary.
The Germans had a similar plan in mind to impose on the allies if the Central powers won the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm
Very well put. Ah, the Treaty of Versailles! If only the Central Powers were actually able to participate in the peace talks, perhaps the rise of fascism would not have ever been necessary.
The Germans had a similar plan in mind to impose on the allies if the Central powers won the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm
"The plan was never officially adopted or put into practice."
The modern consensus is that it was more of a discussion document and not a formally-adopted government policy.
Enough for me.
MY Favorite War. Was This OneI'm convinced that you're a troll at this point, you haven't made a single productive post anywhere.
*snip*
Finnegan is just fin.MY Favorite War. Was This OneI'm convinced that you're a troll at this point, you haven't made a single productive post anywhere.
*snip*
Britian and France had no alliances. Germany declared war on France and Britian declared war on Germany because they invaded neutral Belgium.
You bring up a good point Tali. However, it made me a smile a bit when you said that "By decree, the Royal navy HAD to be bigger then the next two largest navies." I only say that because the last time I checked America's Navy is bigger then I believe the next 17 largest navies combined, forgot the exact number. Amazing how different the world was before world war 1.
I meant in weight(tonnage)Haha, very interesting means of comparison there!
Aye, and the US spent more on defense than the next 13 countries combined in 2011. Meanwhile, our poverty rate is rising, with several states reaching over 15% poverty rates. Fun.
Nah, the problem started LOOOOOONG before Obama came into office. Well, we're in debt, likely for the next 100 years or so. Until we severely revise our outdated constitution I fear our government will continue to operate with the same efficiency as a car running on diamonds.Aye, and the US spent more on defense than the next 13 countries combined in 2011. Meanwhile, our poverty rate is rising, with several states reaching over 15% poverty rates. Fun.
And yet I still have Americans complaining how Obama screwed up everything. Are you guys ever going to get better? :o
Either way, no offense to you Docm, you know what you're talking about... However you may want to think about taking the other person's part of the discussion into consideration instead of dismissing it as horseshit.
It's not his fault he knows more about everything then anybody.
And yet I still have Americans complaining how Obama screwed up everything. Are you guys ever going to get better? :o
Nah, the problem started LOOOOOONG before Obama came into office. Well, we're in debt, likely for the next 100 years or so. Until we severely revise our outdated constitution I fear our government will continue to operate with the same efficiency as a car running on diamonds.Aye, and the US spent more on defense than the next 13 countries combined in 2011. Meanwhile, our poverty rate is rising, with several states reaching over 15% poverty rates. Fun.
And yet I still have Americans complaining how Obama screwed up everything. Are you guys ever going to get better? :o
This is why I love the forums . Ive learned more about ww1 on this thread than in school :P
This is why I love the forums . Ive learned more about ww1 on this thread than in school :P
Same here.
Though, The Game of Thrones is a rather interesting topic, don't you think?
I'm obsessed with the medieval era. Why? I don't know. My favorite war in the medieval era would probably be the Northern Crusades, and since there were actually several wars that took place after the actual crusades were successful, I'll just single out battles from those wars that I've always thought were rather interesting. The battle of Lake Peipus which was a massive Teutonic defeat at the hands of the Republic of Novogorod in 1242, and the battle of Tannenberg (Grunwald) which was another massive Teutonic defeat during the Teutonic-Polish-Lithuanian war at the hands of the Polish and Lithuanians, in 1410.Ah the Battle on the Ice. Have you seen Alexander Nevsky then? Great depiction, although it is obviously a bit biased towards the Russians.
I liked the Medieval Era but I disliked how the total war game made me lose interest(total war games influence what history to learn about)
Ah the Battle on the Ice. Have you seen Alexander Nevsky then? Great depiction, although it is obviously a bit biased towards the Russians.
Well anyways, does anyone know any good books about the states of Sparta and Epirus? I want to get into the Rome 2 era of history(need to brush up) so I need to read up.I can recommend some good sources for the Punic Wars (the first of which is taking place at the beginning of Rome 2). As for the Greek states, Sparta was annexed in the 100s BC so it won't be too relevant. Of course, Pyrrhus is the most interesting subject of Epirus and information on him should be easy to find. I'd recommend books, but I usually get my information from internet sources, occasionally some eBooks. But the subjects I mentioned should make it easier to search for some books.
Britian and France had no alliances. Germany declared war on France and Britian declared war on Germany because they invaded neutral Belgium.
Britain had no formal alliance with France, but both of them had grown weary of Imperial Germany and it's naval buildup in the years following the ousting of Bismarck, by the newly crowned Wilhelm II.
Wilhelm II sought to turn Germany into a proper global superpower. This position was, at the time, only held by the British Empire. Wilhelm thought both that the German was in all way superior to the Britain (Social Darwinism). Now, a large part of being a global superpower in the late 19th century was holding colonies, and shortly put, a colonial empire requires a navy.
There was another motivator to build a stronger German navy, and that was economics. After Germany's rapid industrialization following unification, its economy had began to slow down, and it was thought that a national building program would increase demand for material such as steel and set the economy on course again.
So, Germany started producing Pre-Dreadnoughts. This scared the living shit out of Great Britain, who for the first time since Napoleon felt truly threatened. Now, Germans tend to like their war-machines big and capable of packing a punch, at the cost of operational range. This meant that many of the ships meant to protect the colonies never even left the Baltic sea. One can understand Britain did not like the arrival of a ever-increasing navy virtually at their doorstep. After Germany denied a request to halt the build-up, britain started their own. By decree, the Royal navy HAD to be bigger then the next two largest navies.
The increasing power of the Kriegsmarine and the increasing hubris of Wilhelm II drove the British into the arms of the Entente. I would promise you that Britain would not pass down a opportunity to end the German buildup before it could threaten the Royal Navy. United Kingdom might have declared war upon the germans following the invasion of Belgium, but it was not the invasion of Belgium that caused British intervention in World War 1.
The wars of Julius Caesar, but from the Gallic side, I just love the barbarian tactics and weapons.
Yes!The wars of Julius Caesar, but from the Gallic side, I just love the barbarian tactics and weapons.
What tactics? Their brilliant use of cavarly where they dismount as soon as they meet enemies?
Civil War and Napoleonic Wars. One thing that made me enjoy learning the civil war over NW was the vast amount of memoirs from enlisted men and far more complete records.
The Mexican-American War and the Crimean War were both photographed, a decade before the American Civil War.Civil War and Napoleonic Wars. One thing that made me enjoy learning the civil war over NW was the vast amount of memoirs from enlisted men and far more complete records.
Not to mention it was the first war caught with photography.
The war that I am currently interested in is the fourth Crusade , because don't you just love reading about how Christian states attacked each other in a ''CRUSADE'' against the Muslims?!
I've already apologized and I think Docm and I are now fine with each other. So perhaps everyone else could shush up and get back on topic.
I'm surprised the Crusades haven't come up yet. The Fourth Crusade specifically. Don't you just love when Christians trying to fight Muslims just end up fighting other Christians instead?
The war that I am currently interested in is the fourth Crusade , because don't you just love reading about how Christian states attacked each other in a ''CRUSADE'' against the Muslims?!I've already apologized and I think Docm and I are now fine with each other. So perhaps everyone else could shush up and get back on topic.
I'm surprised the Crusades haven't come up yet. The Fourth Crusade specifically. Don't you just love when Christians trying to fight Muslims just end up fighting other Christians instead?
If you're going to copy something I said word for word, you might try not doing it on the same thread in which I said it.
The war that I am currently interested in is the fourth Crusade , because don't you just love reading about how Christian states attacked each other in a ''CRUSADE'' against the Muslims?!I've already apologized and I think Docm and I are now fine with each other. So perhaps everyone else could shush up and get back on topic.
I'm surprised the Crusades haven't come up yet. The Fourth Crusade specifically. Don't you just love when Christians trying to fight Muslims just end up fighting other Christians instead?
If you're going to copy something I said word for word, you might try not doing it on the same thread in which I said it.
WHAT IN THE HELL ..... Didn't even notice that till now :'(The war that I am currently interested in is the fourth Crusade , because don't you just love reading about how Christian states attacked each other in a ''CRUSADE'' against the Muslims?!I've already apologized and I think Docm and I are now fine with each other. So perhaps everyone else could shush up and get back on topic.
I'm surprised the Crusades haven't come up yet. The Fourth Crusade specifically. Don't you just love when Christians trying to fight Muslims just end up fighting other Christians instead?
If you're going to copy something I said word for word, you might try not doing it on the same thread in which I said it.
My favourite ones are the wars during the reign of Louis XIV (The greatest leader France has ever known) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Years%27_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Devolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Dutch_War