Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Overrated Battles

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>
Author
chean View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 12-Mar-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
  Quote chean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Overrated Battles
    Posted: 04-May-2009 at 12:26
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)
 
Uh - have you actually studied the battle at all? Going by that statement I'm guessing not. Here is the link to the wikipedia page. It will tell you:
 
1) Although comprised of only infantry Harold's army was very formidable.
2) Archers had little effect on it (and their effect grew less as the battle went on since they started to run out of arrows)
3) Harold had by far the better position of the two, meaning he didn't have to do any manoueuvering.
4) Though William had some of the best cavalry in Europe at the time they were repulsed more than once with heavy losses
5) It could easily have been a Saxon victory if the English forces had maintained their discipline and held the shield wall.
 
One more thing - Harold and many of his main lords were not Saxon - they were Danes - in other words Vikings (as, oddly enough, was William by descent).
My last point still stands - if you maintain that Hastings is only important if it lead to the creation of the British Empire, by your qualification we should call battle such as Marne, Verdun, Stalingrad and Midway overrated, since none of them created an Empire.
 
 
 


Edited by chean - 04-May-2009 at 12:29
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-May-2009 at 18:05
Originally posted by Galahadlrrp

--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


most basic words and grammar are still Germanic though. languages cannot be explained so simply as just to count which words originate from where... before the 20th century the German language had numerous French loanwords, and still does have a considderable amount of Latin loanwords even though Germany was never part of either empire.
Back to Top
MitJD View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 21-Apr-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12
  Quote MitJD Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 18:12
Overrated means that people say it is better than what it really is.
Underrated means people don't give them the credit and recognition that they deserve.
Back to Top
MitJD View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 21-Apr-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12
  Quote MitJD Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 18:14
Originally posted by Janissary

What does overrated means???
My bad I did it wrong. You saw my post before. Those are definitions.
Back to Top
warwolf1969 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 08-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 56
  Quote warwolf1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 10:47
To me the most over rated Battle has to be the Battle of Britain.  It was a none event for the simple reason that whoever won, nothing was going to change.  There was no way Germay could have invaded Britain, so why rate the battle as anything.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2010 at 02:16
Of course the German could have invaded. They had the forces and equipment to gte them across. Commandof the air would make that initial assault relatively easy.
 
Whether or not they would have succeeded or been able to maintain the attack is another matter.
 
Withdrawal of the RAF to more northerly airfields would have helped
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jul-2010 at 15:53
What a wonderful series of postings!

A lot of very good points made by a buch of very smart people!

But, I am going to post something that is 180 degrees apart from the title of this site or thread!

My post concerns the War of Northern Agression, which most of you refer to as "The American Civil War!"

I would posit that the turning point in the war, as opposed to all others, would become the real turning point in this war!

I refer all to the Battle of Shiloh!

This battle occured just about 40 miles or so, from all of my family in N. Mississippi, but it was the control of the Tennessee river that really broke the back of the Confederacy!

It was, by a series of mistakes as well as god-sends, for the Union, that the Confederates won and lost this special battle within a matter of hours!

Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
warwolf1969 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 08-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 56
  Quote warwolf1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2010 at 10:38
I thought that the control of the Misissipi broke the back of the confederation. (And yes I know I've spelt the river wrong.)  Surely Vickburg was a more important battle in that case.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2010 at 18:05
Yes, WarWolf, you just cannot have too many ss's in Miss-iss--ippi!

But, if you think that the Western part of the CSA, was more important than the North to South leverage, then you have a point!

But, however you represent it, it was the right of way of the railroads, and waterways, as well as salt deposits, etc., that were in the mind of the agressors!
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Aug-2010 at 11:46
Originally posted by warwolf1969

I thought that the control of the Misissipi broke the back of the confederation. (And yes I know I've spelt the river wrong.)  Surely Vickburg was a more important battle in that case.
 
From a purely military stand point, Vicksburg probably was.  But... one must also consider the psychological impact of Gettysburg:
 
-The CSA army at Gettysburg was the Army of Northeren Viginina (the CSA's flagship army), was personally commanded by Robert E Lee and had the best units and equipment that the CSA could muster.
 
-General Lee had planned to take the offensive and invade Northeren Territory.  Confederate units with top quality commanders had grown accustomed to beating Union Forces, even when out numbered. The invasion looked very promising for the Confederates.
 
The result was a draw at Gettysburg.  Though Vicksburg was a defeat, the draw at Gettysburg involved the best the confederates had. The psychological impact in both the Union and the Confederacy was huge.
 
In WWII, the German were defeated at Moscow, and had a draw at Kursk.  Kursk, however, was in mid summer and the elite German SS Panzer units were rested and equipped with the best weapons Germany had.  Like Gettysburg, Kursk had a huge psychological impact in Germany and the Soviet Union.    


Edited by Cryptic - 17-Aug-2010 at 11:58
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Aug-2010 at 20:00
Gettysburg was nothing but a gambit!

Lee, and the rest of the Confederacy, at this time, had to take a gamble to throw the Union off of its tracks!

I am most sure that by this time the Confederacy knew that the resistance was hopeless!

If it had been a great Confederate victory, then the anti-war section of the North, might well have sued for peace as well as agreeded to seperation!

But, perhaps I am wrong?

Edited by opuslola - 17-Aug-2010 at 20:01
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2010 at 15:43
 
Originally posted by opuslola

Gettysburg was nothing but a gambit!

Lee, and the rest of the Confederacy, at this time, had to take a gamble to throw the Union off of its tracks! 
 
It was a gamble, but it was not reckless.  The CSA's Flagship Army was unbeaten in the field and had demonstrated that it could beat Union armies even when it was outnumbered.  In addition, the Union did not have an overwhelming material advantage that they gained in the following years.
 
Originally posted by opuslola


I am most sure that by this time the Confederacy knew that the resistance was hopeless!
The south should have surrendered immediately after Gettysburg and Vickburg.  
Originally posted by opuslola


If it had been a great Confederate victory, then the anti-war section of the North, might well have sued for peace as well as agreeded to seperation!
It is possible, but the Union still had many fully equipped armies in the field and was rapidly obtaining an overwhelming advantage in material.  By 1863, I think they could have absorbed a large defeat at Gettysburg. To capitalize on a hypothetical win at Gettysburg, the Confederates needed to combine military skills and diplomatic skills. The CSA, however, was lacking in diplomatic skills. 


Edited by Cryptic - 18-Aug-2010 at 15:53
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2010 at 17:17
I did not really state that it was a gamble but rather a more exotic manoeuvre, the "gambit!"--"2.A maneuver, stratagem, or ploy, especially one used at an initial stage."

Originally posted by opuslola


If it had been a great Confederate victory, then the anti-war section of the North, might well have sued for peace as well as agreeded to seperation!

It is possible, but the Union still had many fully equipped armies in the field and was rapidly obtaining an overwhelming advantage in material. By 1863, I think they could have absorbed a large defeat at Gettysburg. To capitalize on a hypothetical win at Gettysburg, the Confederates needed to combine military skills and diplomatic skills. The CSA, however, was lacking in diplomatic skills.

Lacking in diplomatic skills seems a rough example! Just how does one use diplomacy when the opponent does not even recognize that you exist?

But, just suppose that Lee in his gambit had won a major victory in Pennsylvannia? And, then had taken this momentum towards Philadelphia, or Trenton, etc.? Just how would the Northerners have responded to a victorious Confederate army moving without opposition through PA?

There did exist a very strong political force in the North who wanted to abandon the war effort, very early in the war, and this same group would have gained momentum if Lee's army was able to roam far and wide far north of Washington!

One must remember that it was only with Lincoln's determination as well as ignoring the Constitution of the US, that kept the North in the war for the first two years!

Yes, this move might well have had the North sue for peace!

http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2010 at 21:29
Originally posted by opuslola


But, just suppose that Lee in his gambit had won a major victory in Pennsylvannia? And, then had taken this momentum towards Philadelphia, or Trenton, etc.? Just how would the Northerners have responded to a victorious Confederate army moving without opposition through PA?
I dont think the CSA had the logistics to maintain the momentum. A nearby shoe factory drew Confederate armies to the Gettysburg area.  Though described as an "offensive", the Confederate advance into Pennslyvania was more like a giant raid.
 
Then factor in that Union soldiers would be fighting for their homes. The outnumbered Confederates may find themselves like Napoleon in Russia once winter came (winning almost every battle, but losing the campaign)
 
Originally posted by opuslola


Lacking in diplomatic skills seems a rough example! Just how does one use diplomacy when the opponent does not even recognize that you exist?
Maybe retract the outright declaration of independence and offer to form a governement under the principles of the Articles of Confederation (ie a union of autonomous states).  The North may have been willing to listen after a crushing defeat at Gettysburg.  This would enable the North to claim victory as well (Union was preserved, to a degree)
Originally posted by opuslola


One must remember that it was only with Lincoln's determination as well as ignoring the Constitution of the US, that kept the North in the war for the first two years!

Yes, this move might well have had the North sue for peace!
Yes, but by 1863, the Union could see their huge material advantage.  Unless the Confederates won a series of strategic victories, the Union was going to win the war. I do not think they would have sued for peace (surrendered).  They might have been militarily beaten and diplomaticaly pressured into considering a "A preserved union of distinct and locally sovereign states".


Edited by Cryptic - 18-Aug-2010 at 21:42
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2010 at 17:46
I think that you do not really understand the feelings of the average person in PA, at that time? Disregarding the German/Dutch churches, the majority of the people of PA, were much more like the people of VA than other places! Having freed slaves enter their neighborhoods did little to make the people of PA or other Northern states sympathetic! Most of these freedmen/women were illiterate, and lacking in most skills needed in the North! Just like in the South, they were mostly considered as barbarians!

They could not be understood in speach, and could not read nor write! Most of them were regulated into seperate neighborhoods and kept out of normal discourse, etc.!

Sorry to bring reality into this fairy story, but I tell only the truth!
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2010 at 11:29
Originally posted by opuslola

I think that you do not really understand the feelings of the average person in PA, at that time? Disregarding the German/Dutch churches, the majority of the people of PA, were much more like the people of VA than other places!
 
I understand well the attitude of the average citizen in the north towards black Americans.
 
The Union soldiers were not fighting for freeing the slaves, rather they were very willing to fight for the goal of preserving the Union.  Even with a confederate victory at Gettysburg, the Union commanders could see the "light at the end of the tunnel" with their growing material advantage.
 
Union soldiers were going to continue to fight unless:
The Confederates won a series of strategic victories after Gettysburg (highly unlikely) or the    
 Confederates won big at Gettysburg and then offered to rejoin the Union as very autonomous states.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2010 at 22:06
I rather feel that a dramatic victory at Gettysburg, whould have resulted in a decided influx of Penn. troops to the side of Lee!

See;

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

Again, if Lee had dramatically defeated the Union army at Gettysburg, captured thousands of draftees, as well as the Union supplies, then he would have been well equiped for a "soiree'" thru PA! It would have been interesting to see just how many of the Union draftees would have volunteered to join Lee and his army?

There also exists a French term for the above, but it escapes me at this time! Knights at one time, swarmed across France with abandon!

Perhaps you can remember the term?

I think the word is Chauvache or something similar?

Edited by opuslola - 01-Sep-2010 at 15:08
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
p,c,ma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Sep-2010
Location: Tennessee
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 119
  Quote p,c,ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2010 at 22:35
Chevauchee was tge term used for the raids by the english during the hundred years war.
 
As for Gettysburg, they weren't but a short distance from Washington. If Lee had followed Longstreet's advice and marched on it they could have had a open field battle much more suited to southern tactics.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2010 at 22:52
A very good point "ma!"

Perhaps Gen. Lee should have listened more closely?
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
p,c,ma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Sep-2010
Location: Tennessee
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 119
  Quote p,c,ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2010 at 17:02
In the end I dont think the Johnny Rebs would have won anyway. They just didn't have the logistics or weaponry to win.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.