![]() |
You cannot post here - you can only read.
Here is the
link to the new forum:
|
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1 4567> |
Author | ||
Cryptic ![]() General ![]() Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 901 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 |
||
![]() |
||
Temujin ![]() Immortal Guard ![]() ![]() Sirdar Bahadur Joined: 02-Aug-2004 Location: Eurasia Status: Offline Points: 5237 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
Sparten ![]() Immortal Guard ![]() ![]() Totalitarian Iconoclast Joined: 18-Mar-2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 5009 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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".
|
||
![]() |
||
gcle2003 ![]() Immortal Guard ![]() ![]() Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Location: Luxembourg Status: Offline Points: 7011 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. |
||
![]() |
||
Cryptic ![]() General ![]() Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 901 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
![]()
I see your point and I agree. Edited by Cryptic - 29-Apr-2009 at 21:30 |
||
![]() |
||
Temujin ![]() Immortal Guard ![]() ![]() Sirdar Bahadur Joined: 02-Aug-2004 Location: Eurasia Status: Offline Points: 5237 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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: ![]() |
||
![]() |
||
TheRedBaron ![]() Housecarl ![]() Joined: 15-May-2007 Status: Offline Points: 40 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
But you are not taking into account the countermeasures in your appraisal of when they were more effective.
|
||
![]() |
||
chean ![]() Immortal Guard ![]() Joined: 12-Mar-2009 Status: Offline Points: 8 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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?
|
||
![]() |
||
Temujin ![]() Immortal Guard ![]() ![]() Sirdar Bahadur Joined: 02-Aug-2004 Location: Eurasia Status: Offline Points: 5237 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 |
||
![]() |
||
The_Insaniac ![]() Immortal Guard ![]() ![]() Joined: 29-Apr-2009 Status: Offline Points: 0 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. |
||
![]() |
||
Galahadlrrp ![]() Knight ![]() ![]() Joined: 11-Nov-2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 66 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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? |
||
![]() |
||
Temujin ![]() Immortal Guard ![]() ![]() Sirdar Bahadur Joined: 02-Aug-2004 Location: Eurasia Status: Offline Points: 5237 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
Galahadlrrp ![]() Knight ![]() ![]() Joined: 11-Nov-2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 66 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
--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. |
||
![]() |
||
gcle2003 ![]() Immortal Guard ![]() ![]() Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Location: Luxembourg Status: Offline Points: 7011 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. |
||
![]() |
||
Galahadlrrp ![]() Knight ![]() ![]() Joined: 11-Nov-2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 66 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
--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. |
||
![]() |
||
Omar al Hashim ![]() Immortal Guard ![]() ![]() Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Location: Snowy-Highlands Status: Offline Points: 5725 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 |
||
![]() |
||
gcle2003 ![]() Immortal Guard ![]() ![]() Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Location: Luxembourg Status: Offline Points: 7011 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. |
||
![]() |
||
chean ![]() Immortal Guard ![]() Joined: 12-Mar-2009 Status: Offline Points: 8 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 |
||
![]() |
||
Temujin ![]() Immortal Guard ![]() ![]() Sirdar Bahadur Joined: 02-Aug-2004 Location: Eurasia Status: Offline Points: 5237 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
exactly. |
||
![]() |
||
Galahadlrrp ![]() Knight ![]() ![]() Joined: 11-Nov-2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 66 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
--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 |
||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1 4567> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |