Overrated Battles

the thing is, in ww1 u-boat actions were not very coordinated, and it was sort of "new" so it's potential was underestimated. other factures probably also contributed to this.

Originally posted by Cryptic Originally posted by gcle2003 With regard to pulling the US into the war, that sounds more like the other Battle of the Atlantic in ww1. I think that it also applies in WWII. For example, Britain convinced the United States to assign destroyer escorts to convoys west of Iceland long before the United States actually entered the war. The U.S. ships were escorting legitimate targets in a combat zone so it was only a matter of time before a destroyer (USS James Greer?) was sunk and public opinion inflamed.

i brought up some numbers:

ww1:

320 U-Boats sunk 6.394 civilian ships (12 million tonnage) and 100 military vessels (366.000 tonnage)

ww2:

over 1000 U-Boats sunk 3.500 civilian ships and 175 warships (15 million tonnage)


even if there's an imbalance of 3 million tonnage, i would argue that the u-boats were significantly more sucessfull in ww1.

here's a statistic for ww2:

Originally posted by Temujin Originally posted by chean Have to say anyone saying Hastings was unimportant obviously hasn't studied English history. At the beginning of 1066 England was an Anglo-Saxon country, with Anglo-Saxon people, nobility, laws, culture etc. By the end it was a Norman country with not only different rulers but different culture, laws, rights, social standing and allegances. The appearance and order of England - not to mention it's future - was profoundly changed by the victory. The next few years would see a ruthless culling of all the old Anglo-Saxon nobility and their replacement with new Norman barons, the start of castle building on a near unmatched scale in English history and a brutal subjugation of the common people. This was as a result specifically of the battle of Hastings, because if William had lost there it's highly unlikely he would have been able to try again (if he had managed to survive the battle that is!). yeah we know about Normans and their local importance for Britian but English are not Normans. the failure here is to understand that the Normans were only a sidenote in world history, a phenomenon limited to the middle ages. there is no serious argument Normans were responsible for future English/British exploits.

Cannae is also one of the most overrated battles.  Before you say "How can you say that, 70+ thousand Romans were killed..."  How does it change anything?  Hannibal still doesn't take Rome, it simply delays the end.  Yes, it showed that attacking Hannibal head on was a bad idea, but the Romans had already seen that.  Rome also raised armies strong enough to challenge Hannibal within two years.  Anyway, it was Hannibal's last major victory and the Spanish campaign cut him off from his supplies and reinforcements.

So, if anyone can think of a good reason that Cannae is not overrated, please tell me.

P.S Hannibal was also facing a young, overaggressive commander whose strategy was to use a freaking phalanks against the master of flanking manuvers.

well before ww1 French and even German were globally more important languages than English and i've never read nor seen anything by Shakespear, and that i speak this language is due to ym education, it's not the only foreign language i speak and that i post on this forum and not a German one is my decsicion. let's wait some more years and see if English remains the established lingua franca or not...it's not even the most-spoken language of the world btw.

Fleshing out Galahadirrp's claim somewhat, one reason for the diffusion of English is its protean nature which derives from it being essentially a pidgin/creole in the first place, not just as a Romance/Germanic hybrid but also as a Celtic/Germanic one. That makes both the Anglo-Saxon and Norman conquests relevant to its dominance.

English is an important world language today because we have experience two great successive English speaking empires. First the British Empire, and then the USA.

Now English is studied because everyone else studies English. Previously English was studied because people were either ruled by the English, had to deal with the English, or were English. In other words, the English language is only important because the English people speak it, and because the English people conquered a large Empire. The English language itself is actually one of the hardist ones to learn!

If the English people spoke Saxon, then Saxon would be important. If there was no French or Latin in the English language it wouldn't make the slightest difference!

You can only say Hastings is important if it lead to the British Empire. I don't think it did. Although my main criticism of Hastings is actually William's leadership. William had cavalry, archers and infantry, facing off against an entirely infantry army. The only way Harold could've won was through William's incompetence, because the Norman army was so much more flexible than the Anglo-Saxon that William could have out manoeuvred and out ranged Harold at will. (In fact, this is what he eventually did but it took him a while)


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 03-May-2009 at 01:52

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim English is an important world language today because we have experience two great successive English speaking empires. First the British Empire, and then the USA. Now English is studied because everyone else studies English. Previously English was studied because people were either ruled by the English, had to deal with the English, or were English. In other words, the English language is only important because the English people speak it, and because the English people conquered a large Empire. The English language itself is actually one of the hardist ones to learn! If the English people spoke Saxon, then Saxon would be important. If there was no French or Latin in the English language it wouldn't make the slightest difference! You can only say Hastings is important if it lead to the British Empire. I don't think it did. Although my main criticism of Hastings is actually William's leadership. William had cavalry, archers and infantry, facing off against an entirely infantry army. The only way Harold could've won was through William's incompetence, because the Norman army was so much more flexible than the Anglo-Saxon that William could have out manoeuvred and out ranged Harold at will. (In fact, this is what he eventually did but it took him a while)

Edited by chean - 03-May-2009 at 17:52

--For those who might be interested, this links to a pie chart showing the breakdown of the words in modern English. It's interesting that the largest shares come from French and Latin (29% each), followed by the Germanic languages, at 26%.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Origins_of_English_PieChart.svg/601px-Origins_of_English_PieChart.svg.png