 |
| |
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Kaiser's Battle- the objective of the German army at that time was to race past the Somme, reach the Seine, splitting the allied line, thereby isolating part of the allied army and forcing it to surrender. With massive numbers of American replacements arriving ( there were already 1 million training in France ) this was not a realistic expectation. If the Germans had reached their objectives American replacements would have been there to seal the gap. The German defeat later in the year would have simply been all that more spectacular. |
Opinions on this still vary, but there wern't millions of Yanks in the spring of 1918 ready to fill gaps in the lines, this was done mostly by British forces.
A breakthrough could have crippled France and forced it out of the war, it's postion was still precarious after the disaster of Chemenne des Dames in 1917.
quote:
Kursk- this battle was moot. The Soviet Union wasn't going to surrender, but Germany no longer had a chance to win. |
One of the major falicies of history.
Germany was far from Beaten, had the Germans won at Provkrovka, the Soviets would have had no mobile reserve for their fall offensive, and the Germans would have stabilized their front.
Many people fail to realize how close WWII was, simply because the allies won.
Kursk convinces Hitler's allies they can't win, and this is a political disaster for Hitler.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:21
|
|
What about Manzikert 1071 or Mohacs 1526?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:21
|
|
Nancy 1477, the two parts of greater Burgundy united, no Spanish/Austrian Netherlands, a powerful Duchy on the borders of France..
I think that had the Mongols won at Ayn Jalut and conquered Egypt and Arabia it wouldn't have meant the end of Islam, there were still Kingdoms in Spain and the Margreb. Also the Mongols would have become Islamised and absorbed by those they conquered, like they did in Persia.
People have mentioned Manzikert but no one the capture in 1204 on Constantinople by the crusaders, while Manzikert damaged the empire, the events of 1204 destroyed any hope of recovery.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
As long as we are talking about Roman history, could someone answer this question for me.
After the defeat at Teutoburg Forest, why didn't the Romans eliminate Arminius through assassination-something by no means unacceptable to Roman morality-instead of going for a typically brutal response to his rebellion? |
His betrayal led to the loss of an Imperail Eagle, taken as a war prize, an unacceptable politcal symbol, and a bad example for others who might follow it.
Rome had no choice but to launch Indastivio, the "campaign of the Eagles", lest other emulate Arminius in other parts of the empire.
Tolls:
It seemed Lundendorf was convinced that the only way to win in the west was to defeat the British, and as Byng and his 5th corps found out, the German army just might have.
A breakthrough came VERY close, it was Lundendorf's other major error not to launch a follow up at the same location, but to try another part of the line.
Britain's morale wasn't rock solid either (In britain's rear areas several mutinees had occuried, and several ringleaders executed), all of Europe was tired of the war, but if Germany had broken the morale of Britain or France, the outcome of 1918 may have been different, and Germany may have been in a better postion to bargin for peace then what actually happened.
They might have kept areas sized in the treaty of Brest-Litvosk, and adversly affected the Russian revolution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Actually, they were quite different, Persian culture was authority driven in a totalitarian fashion, Greek society, especailly Athenian, was far more liberal.
And a major factor in their fall was those pesky Greeks sending money and mercenaries to Persia.
Hmm, a don't have Ceasar's commentaries handy, but as I recall, Gaul was divided into at least 60 distinct and seperate tribes when Caesar first cross Ciscalpine Gaul with his army.
All Roman provinces were invaded at first to pacify them, this was a standard Roman procedure, Germania was no different.
Not so, the Selucids (Persians) were direct decendents of one of Alexander's generals, and they bedeviled first the Republic and then the empire for centuries before being defeated by the Sassinids.
Many eastern parts also, but under a mongol Khan, you would not see Mullahs having undo influence.
Also, no crusader army could stand against a Mongol one (an example would be Hungary), so the Crusades would have been prfetty much over. |
Democracy in Athens lasted a mere 40 years, during the age of Pericles, who was not a contemporary of this time. The rest of Greece was certainly familiar with tyrannical rule. Furthermore, many people believe that Persian Zorasterism was the ultimate inspiration for Judaism and its related religions. I don't think you can convincingly argue that Judeo-Christianity was an "eastern influence".
Central Gaul was united under Vercingtrix during Caesar's time. Gallic culture was more advanced than Germanic culture at this time. Even in the first century B.C. Rome was so hard pressed to find settlers for its expanded border regions that it resorted to turning entire legions into settlers. These legions became the "Limini". The soldiers of these formations were given land grants provided that their families continued to produce legionnaires for the empire. The formations were limited to service in the province they setled in.
Like the Ptolomies the Selucids eventually went completely native
The major Crusades were over before the Mongols appeared.
The Khanate of the Golden Horde were known to be fiercely religious Muslims. The Mameluks were known for their decadence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Opinions on this still vary, but there wern't millions of Yanks in the spring of 1918 ready to fill gaps in the lines, this was done mostly by British forces.
A breakthrough could have crippled France and forced it out of the war, it's postion was still precarious after the disaster of Chemenne des Dames in 1917.
One of the major falicies of history.
Germany was far from Beaten, had the Germans won at Provkrovka, the Soviets would have had no mobile reserve for their fall offensive, and the Germans would have stabilized their front.
Many people fail to realize how close WWII was, simply because the allies won.
Kursk convinces Hitler's allies they can't win, and this is a political disaster for Hitler. |
By the Spring of 1918 there were already 1 million American troops in France. They were considered to be inadequately trained, but if needed they would certainly have been thrown into the line.
Germany was more pressed to find reserves than the Soviet Union in 1943. A victory for Germany would have meant pushing back the Soviets a small distance, but it still would have bled irreplaceable troops from the axis lines. The progress of the war in the east might have been stalled for the allies somewhat. Perhaps Patton would have met the Russian in Slovakia instead of Bohemia, but the end would have been the same. There would have been no postwar hassle over reuniting Austria, because it would have been occupied by the western powers, and maybe Czechoslovakia would have been divided, but Germany would certainly been divided.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Democracy in Athens lasted a mere 40 years, during the age of Pericles, who was not a contemporary of this time. The rest of Greece was certainly familiar with tyrannical rule. Furthermore, many people believe that Persian Zorasterism was the ultimate inspiration for Judaism and its related religions. I don't think you can convincingly argue that Judeo-Christianity was an "eastern influence". |
I don't see how that is at odds with what I said.
quote:
Central Gaul was united under Vercingtrix during Caesar's time. |
Ah, this is a common mistake, appling 21st century value systems to ancient cultures.
The only alliance was anti-Roman, and Vercengetrix was only a war leader, not a suprmeme leader, IE, he could call tribes for help, but could not make strtegic decisions.quote:
Gallic culture was more advanced than Germanic culture at this time. Even in the first century B.C. Rome was so hard pressed to find settlers for its expanded border regions that it resorted to turning entire legions into settlers. These legions became the "Limini". The soldiers of these formations were given land grants provided that their families continued to produce legionnaires for the empire. The formations were limited to service in the province they setled in. |
Your a bit off here, limitanei are not legionaires, in fact, Roman legionaires were forbidden to have wives into at least Aurilius' time, they were not permanent settlers, as you suggest.
Your thinking of the landless peasants and barbarians who had entered Rome to settle on land in exchange for imperial service, THEY were given such grants and became the limitanei, which is the equivilent of a "National Guard", but NEVER supplanted the Comitatensis (Legion) in Roman military structure.
http://myron.sjsu.edu/romeweb/ROMARMY/art7.htm
quote:
Like the Ptolomies the Selucids eventually went completely native |
They resembled Greek culture far more then Persian, it is Sasnids that eridicate Greek influenece.
quote:
The major Crusades were over before the Mongols appeared. |
Let's compare the timelines:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sty...rusadeline.html
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/f...line/index.html
You will notice that the Khan begins his westward attack in 1220, just before the fifth crusade, so they were far from over.
quote:
The Khanate of the Golden Horde were known to be fiercely religious Muslims. The Mameluks were known for their decadence. |
Yes, the horde held the Russians to backwardness for centuries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
By the Spring of 1918 there were already 1 million American troops in France. They were considered to be inadequately trained, but if needed they would certainly have been thrown into the line. |
Pershing had strict orders NOT to allow US forces to be used as piecemeal replacements, or to allow the AEF to be broken up, no matter what.
quote:
Germany was more pressed to find reserves than the Soviet Union in 1943. A victory for Germany would have meant pushing back the Soviets a small distance, but it still would have bled irreplaceable troops from the axis lines. The progress of the war in the east might have been stalled for the allies somewhat. Perhaps Patton would have met the Russian in Slovakia instead of Bohemia, but the end would have been the same. There would have been no postwar hassle over reuniting Austria, because it would have been occupied by the western powers, and maybe Czechoslovakia would have been divided, but Germany would certainly been divided. |
This is hardly a hard and fast concensus, in fact, I have just recently debated this topic elsewhere, that the Soviets were FAR from invincable.
Since it's all speculation, arguing back and forth is pointless, it's all in the realm of "what if". 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MattHiggs
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
I don't see how that is at odds with what I said.
Ah, this is a common mistake, appling 21st century value systems to ancient cultures.
The only alliance was anti-Roman, and Vercengetrix was only a war leader, not a suprmeme leader, IE, he could call tribes for help, but could not make strtegic decisions.Your a bit off here, limitanei are not legionaires, in fact, Roman legionaires were forbidden to have wives into at least Aurilius' time, they were not permanent settlers, as you suggest.
Your thinking of the landless peasants and barbarians who had entered Rome to settle on land in exchange for imperial service, THEY were given such grants and became the limitanei, which is the equivilent of a "National Guard", but NEVER supplanted the Comitatensis (Legion) in Roman military structure.
http://myron.sjsu.edu/romeweb/ROMARMY/art7.htm
They resembled Greek culture far more then Persian, it is Sasnids that eridicate Greek influenece.
Let's compare the timelines:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sty...rusadeline.html
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/f...line/index.html
You will notice that the Khan begins his westward attack in 1220, just before the fifth crusade, so they were far from over.
Yes, the horde held the Russians to backwardness for centuries. |
You should edit that post to CBeast!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zkribbler
IN World War II, the most important battle was the Battle of Britian. If the RAF had been destroyed, then the Royal Navy would have been next and then Operation Sealion. |
Operation Sealion was never going to happen even with the RAF badly damaged. Even if the Brits had most of their planes wiped out the Germans still had only a pack of minimal free board river barges to move their troops with. Nothing that could carry heavy artillery or tanks and even then the barges could only do 5 knots at that was with good weather.
The plan was to take a British port and then land stuff then go back for more with the same unfit river barges. All the while the lack of artillery would be made up by the Luftwaffe. The Brittish Navy would be blocked by the Luftwaffe. Any remaining Brittish planes would be handled entirely by the Luftwafe as the troops would have AAA for days on end even with miraculous weather. Blocking British troops from moving to the invasion zone would be done by the Luftwaffe. All Luftwaffe flights would have to be from the continent of course untill they took an airstrip and moved supplies over.
All that work by an air unit that was long on promises and short on delivery, time and again whenever Goering said he would things the Luftwaffe had never been intended to do. The German Navy thought the plan was daft. The Luftwaffe even didn't pretend they could do it. Hitler authorized the barges and the planning but he clearly didn't care one bit about the project either. As far as I can see it was a more that just a bit of bluff since Hitler was only interested in invading Russia at the time. The best I can figure is that Germany simply didn't bother setting the whole mess aside thinking it might help to keep the Brits and Russians off guard.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
The problem was the Germany simply didn't have the resources to invade Britain. To have reasonable chance of success would have required
Actual landing craft - self powered and designed for the job.
Shipping capable of supporting the invasion force once it landed
A Navy that could support all that stuff which means a Navy that could stand up to Britains ships and shore batteries.
Long range tactical bombers
Long range strategic bombers
Long range fighters
The Luftaffe had little that could do any of that. They had a hard enough time with hit and run missions in the Battle of Britain.
Trains that would run on British tracks unless they allready were compatible. Don't know on this one.
Any attempt to make a serious invasion of Britain would have needed at least a year or two of preparation plus they needed to cut Britain's supplies. They did nearly manage that last part. That would have made Sea Lion a far more viable idea even without a custom designed invasion force like the Allies used at Normandy.
-------------------------------------
German breakthrough strategy at the end of WWI also had a serious logistical handicap. One of the main reasons why BOTH sides had been utterly unable to follow up on the occasional breakthrough was that WWI supplies were heavily dependent on rail. Once the troops had advanced twenty miles or so they were stopped by supply problems time and again. The battle lines and trenches had destroyed the rail lines needed for rapid advance. New rails would have to built on torn up and blasted ground that was full of trenches, tunnels and churned up mud. Not mention dead bodies. Untill the new rails were in place there could be no follow up attacks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
From the point of view of Western civilization, the Battle of Chalons remains the most important in Western history, and therefor, the most important in World history. IMO, battles have to be ranked according to whether the result is the replacement of one civilization by another - or prevented it, in the case of Chalons.
The battle of Ayn Jalut was unimportant to the West. Besides, only a century latter, the Mongols - Timor in charge - conquered the whole ME, the Russian steppes, and Northern India.
The battle of Portiers was relatively unimportant as well. What Martel defeated was a reconnaisance in force. It is not certain that the Arabs would have invaded the Frank kingdom had they had won this battle. Regardless, this battle pales in comparision to Chalons.
No battle among European kings or dukes (as in the Duke of Normandy) can rank up there with Chalons because whoever won would have had no major effect on Western civilization. I also do not believe that a victory by Nazi Germany would have brought on another Dark Age. Nazi Germany was little different that Soviet Russia, and the world survived that.
Andrianople is very close, because it caused the "Fall" of the Roman Empire.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
From the point of view of Western civilization, the Battle of Chalons remains the most important in Western history, and therefor, the most important in World history. IMO, battles have to be ranked according to whether the result is the replacement of one civilization by another - or prevented it, in the case of Chalons.
The battle of Ayn Jalut was unimportant to the West. Besides, only a century latter, the Mongols - Timor in charge - conquered the whole ME, the Russian steppes, and Northern India.
The battle of Portiers was relatively unimportant as well. What Martel defeated was a reconnaisance in force. It is not certain that the Arabs would have invaded the Frank kingdom had they had won this battle. Regardless, this battle pales in comparision to Chalons.
No battle among European kings or dukes (as in the Duke of Normandy) can rank up there with Chalons because whoever won would have had no major effect on Western civilization. I also do not believe that a victory by Nazi Germany would have brought on another Dark Age. Nazi Germany was little different that Soviet Russia, and the world survived that.
Andrianople is very close, because it caused the "Fall" of the Roman Empire. |
Well, if you consider any battle that saved Europe from a change of its cource then you should consider the battles of Marathon/Salamis/Plataies and the two sieges of Constantinople by the arabs of the same importance. In different results, Roman empire would possibly never rise or Western Europe would speak arab and bow to Allah.
But I insist. Lot of past battles if had different results than the original the world would most likely had been very different than the one we know.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2002 19:12
|