History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedOverrated Battles

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
Author
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 20:28

Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

in fact German U-boats in ww1 sunk more total tonnage than in ww2.

Wow, that is an amazing statistic. The level of U-Boat victories in WWI may have directly contributed to Admiral Doenitz's ignoring data proving that the WWII effort was not sustainable by early 1943. It also supports my belief that the British deliberatly exaggerated the WWII U-boat threat to gain U.S. support. 


Edited by Cryptic - 28-Apr-2009 at 20:31
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 20:35
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.
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 00:44
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

in fact German U-boats in ww1 sunk more total tonnage than in ww2.
I find that hard to believe, the U Boats sunks more than 15 million tonnes of shipping in WWII, I don;t think there was even 15 millions tonnes in 1914-1918.
 
What is true that in 1914-1918 the U-Boats came a lot closer to victory that in 1939-1945, but mainly because of the fact that their potential to pretty much sever the UK from America was not fully realised, and when it was they had inadequet numbers to do so. Still in WWI at one time in early 1918, the UK was down to 3 days food. It never got that desperate in WWII.
 
 
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 11:54
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

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. 
What I meant was that the US administration in ww1 needed a lot more 'pulling' than in ww2. There was no 'Atlantic Charter' in ww1.
 
It's worth noting that defensive anti-submarine tactics and equipment, from aerial patrols to sonar to code-breaking and the use of operational research, were much more effective in ww2, whereas apart from the snorkel, submarines' offensive ability hadn't much changed.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 15:26

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

whereas apart from the snorkel, submarines' offensive ability hadn't much changed.
They had a few other advances as well such as homing torpedoes, but they were easily decoyed and their effectiveness was disappointing.  It seems that German technical ability was not being spent on the army and the Airforce, but not the U-boats. The poorly designed radar detection / warning device was even manufactured by a French company. I doubt that French engineers were staying up at night designing new and innovative improvments for the GermansConfused.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

What I meant was that the US administration in ww1 needed a lot more 'pulling' than in ww2. 
I see your point and I agree.


Edited by Cryptic - 29-Apr-2009 at 21:30
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 19:53
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:


Back to Top
TheRedBaron View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 15-May-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TheRedBaron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 09:23
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

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:


 
 
But you are not taking into account the countermeasures in your appraisal of when they were more effective.
Back to Top
chean View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 12-Mar-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 8
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 14:19
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

Originally posted by chean chean wrote:

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.
 
Ahhh but that is not what this thread is about is it? It's about overrated battles. As I said the Battle of Hastings altered the shape of the whole of England. Now it doesn't matter if that was for just the next few years or for the next few centuries - that one battle re-shaped an entire country. I would say that makes it fairly important in English history, wouldn't you?
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 18:21
Originally posted by TheRedBaron TheRedBaron wrote:

 
 
But you are not taking into account the countermeasures in your appraisal of when they were more effective.


in November 1917 according to jellico (178 active German U-boats):

277 Destroyers
30 gunboats
44 P-boats
338 motorboats
65 U-boats
68 coastal motor boats
49 steam-yachts
849 fishing steamers
687 drifters
24 mine-sweepers
50 airships
194 aircraft
77 u-boats traps
Back to Top
The_Insaniac View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 29-Apr-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The_Insaniac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2009 at 00:50
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.
Back to Top
Galahadlrrp View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Galahadlrrp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-May-2009 at 07:36
Temujin writes "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."
--If it wasn't for the Norman victory at Hastings, which led to the Norman Conquest, we wouldn't be having this discussion in this language today. Why? Because we wouldn't have the English Language. It was the blending of the French spoken by the Norman overlords and the Anglo-Saxon spoken by the conquered that eventually morphed into English. No Norman victory at Hastings, no Shakespeare, etc.
--Are you saying that the English Language has no world importance? If that's the case, then why is this forum not conducted in something like Mandarin or Arabic?
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-May-2009 at 16:46
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.
Back to Top
Galahadlrrp View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Galahadlrrp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-May-2009 at 21:19
--I'm well aware that English isn't the most widely spoken language in the world; that's Mandarin, based on the numbers of speakers total. But English is second. Further, it's the international language of science. And air traffic is directed and controlled in English. International business conferences tend to use English as the language of communication.
--And if you've never read Shakespeare, that's your loss; an awful lot of people HAVE read his works. Many more than have read--say--Goethe.
--What YOU said was that Hastings only had a local effect on the world. That is patently incorrect. Regardless of what languages had prominence in the past, and what language has the most speakers, or what language may be dominant in the future, the fact is undeniable that in the present world English has had a global impact.
--And that impact would not have happened had the Norman invaders not won the Battle of Hastings, because there would have been no English Language to be so widely used.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-May-2009 at 21:51

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.

Where English substantially leads incidentally is in the number of non-native speakers that speak it. On that count it dwarfs Mandarin.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Galahadlrrp View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Galahadlrrp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-May-2009 at 00:11
--gcle2003 writes: "That makes both the Anglo-Saxon and Norman conquests relevant to its dominance."
--Right on! If not for the Anglo-Saxon conquest and no Norman conquest, today's English would probably be a corrupted form of Latin, more-or-less like French or Spanish.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-May-2009 at 01:50
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
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-May-2009 at 11:44
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

  The English language itself is actually one of the hardist ones to learn!
But more tolerant of mistakes than most - i.e. you get your sense over even if your sentence is incorrect - and there are many more ways of saying the same thing than most languages provide.
 
And, following your point about the two English-speaking empires - would the American 'Empire' have been English-speaking if it weren't the most flexible one around?


Edited by gcle2003 - 03-May-2009 at 11:47
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
chean View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 12-Mar-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 8
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-May-2009 at 17:45
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

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)
 
So basically a battle can only be important if it is responsible for the creation of a massive empire? In that case the number of important battles in history can be counted on one hand. My point is simply that Hastings was an important battle in English history - nothing more. As far as the empire goes it was probably less important than many latter ones, but to claim a battle is over-rated simply because it doesn't change the history of the entire world is a bit unfair.


Edited by chean - 03-May-2009 at 17:52
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-May-2009 at 18:58
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

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)


exactly.
Back to Top
Galahadlrrp View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Galahadlrrp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-May-2009 at 01:30
--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
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.