Favorite War to Learn About

[Allasaphore]

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).

[Doctor Scherzando]

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.

[Docm30]

Napoleon's rise was similar to that of Hitler and Mussolini...

No, it wasn't. At all. Hitler rose to power by capitalising on the common man's hatred of Jews, Communists and other "undesirables". He tricked people into believing the whole world wanted to crush the German people and that he must save it. Then he finally consolidated his power via mass murder of anyone who he thought stood in his way. His rise to power in almost no way resembled Napoleon's, except perhaps in that they both came to power in desperate times, but that's such a vague comparison as to be effectively worthless.

[Doctor Scherzando]

The comparisons are far more numerous than you wish to admit. You say that Hitler tricked people into believing that the world wanted to destroy Germany. In effect, France was going through just that, with the most powerful nations in Europe going to war with them after the beheading of Louis. Napoleon and Hitler were both nationalists who united their people and carried their nations out of the crapper (yes, Hitler's means were awful and detrimental in the long run) until finally being defeated in wars that reached across the entire world. Perhaps you want to look up a definition of the word "similar". I never said they were identical. I wouldn't say the comparison is "vague" however calling it "broad" would not be unfair.

For someone so knowledgeable of history I'm surprised you would use absolutes ("no it wasn't, at all"). Brinton's Model demonstrates the similarities quite easily, although that format is a bit crude and basic.

[Docm30]

Hitler tricked people, whereas France was actually being attacked by just about every nation is Europe. Pretty big difference, that. Napoleon's coup (which was actually Abbé Sieyès' coup) was also bloodless; Hitler's was far from it.

How can you possibly call Napoleon a nationalist? he, at least for a period, wanted to unite all of Europe under a single banner. That is the dead opposite of nationalism, which promotes strongly independent and uni-culture nations.

That fact that both lost their position in a large war in no way implies any kind of similarity in their rises to power, or in the men themselves. The wars in question started for very, very different reasons and are quite incomparable.

Pointless and trivial comparisons do nothing to improve anyone's understanding of history.

[Pinball Wizard]

Honestly, I love learning about all the ancient Greek battles, wars,and conquests (mostly by Alexander who wasn't Greek) in general in comparison to other wars and country's quarrels.

[William]

I really like every war leading up to "The Great War". I feel that up to that point generals and commanders had to manage their troops a lot more. Battles were slower, cavalry was the hammer that all armies needed, and artillery was important, but not as necessary. I feel that after the Franco-Prussian War, war degraded to Trench Warfare and the absence of charges, cavalry, and "better micro" by commanders, and by no means am I saying that modern war doesn't require tactics, but a battle can change in an instant from an airstrike, artillery barrage, tanks, or any of the modern implements of war.

[Docm30]

...mostly by Alexander who wasn't Greek...

Macedonians were consider Greeks. Not just Hellenic, either, but proper Greek.

[TORN]

...mostly by Alexander who wasn't Greek...

Macedonian were consider Greeks. Not just Hellenic, either, but proper Greek.

Mind completely blown!

Spoiler

[close]

[Doctor Scherzando]

Well, I see it's impossible to have a discussion without condescension. I bet you're a ton of fun at parties.

[Brock]

i think tat te cold war was very intrestin cause of howe muche actun tuk place, don you agree doc?

[Docm30]

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.

[Archduke Sven]

Oh Docm, remember our wonderful conversation about Quatre Bras 

My favorite war to learn about? I enjoy all periods of history, i never sit stuck on one single era/period/war. I enjoy reading about Roman legions, Crusaders, Spanish Tercios, Swedish Musketeers, British Redcoats, Picklehaubed Germans and American G.I. with equal passion and curiosty.

However right now im a bit WWI hyped since i finished a book called "The Beauty and the Sorrow" which in my opinion is a great book to read about the average person's/soldier's experience in that war.

[Duuring]

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.

Noooooooo! Don't leave! The forums will be so much less fun!
And while Docm might be a bit blunt, he is in no way offensive or insulting. It's not his fault he knows more about everything then anybody.

Except about Dutch Guard cavalry, of course.

[TORN]

I'm afraid to argument Docm because I know he's right.