I think the Battle at Stalingrad was one of the most interesting battles of all time for several reasons. It had the highest amount of human casualties in documented history, the Red Army were definitely the underdogs in this battle, although they did triumph. The tactics used by both the Nazi and Red Army added good was definitely interesting to read.
depends on how you define "best"
Lepanto was very influential as were both seiges if Vienna by the Turks (1529 & 1683)
1453 - the fall of Constantinople was culturally significant and the use of cannon marked a transition in warfare (killed an empire that was 1100 years old)
Yorktown
Somme
Ypres
Jutland
Trafalger
Midway
Lindisfarne 783
Tours 732
Stamford Bridge 1066
Bosworth Field
etc etc etc
Lepanto was very influential as were both seiges if Vienna by the Turks (1529 & 1683)
1453 - the fall of Constantinople was culturally significant and the use of cannon marked a transition in warfare (killed an empire that was 1100 years old)
Yorktown
Somme
Ypres
Jutland
Trafalger
Midway
Lindisfarne 783
Tours 732
Stamford Bridge 1066
Bosworth Field
etc etc etc
From a Canadian's standpoint, it was the battle of Vimy Ridge in World War I. It was one of Canada's finest military achievements, capturing a major lookout land that Britain and France previously failed at attempting to get. It also was the first battle where one side actually had a battle plan, as previously, most wars would be just shoot the other guys and hope for the best.
That's not very accurate.
Thermopylae (480BC), mentioned earlier had a plan. It is still studied in war colleges today as perhaps one (if not the) finest examples of the use of terrain to permit a much smaller force to defend against a much larger one.
Examples of this technique stretch back to Meggido, roughly 1480BC find common cause with battles in 1066 (Stamford Bridge) and on and on.
Terrain matters - its one of the premier rules of war.
I say the Battle of Thermopylae but I give credit to the Athenians. The Spartans might have been bad asses but it was the Athenian Navy that made the Persians cry uncle and prevented them from landing troops at the Greek Army's rear. The Greek Army was all of 1,000 strong (300 of them were Spartans but they didn't fight alone) and wouldn't have lasted more then a few hours had the Persians had mastery of the sea.
Depends on how one defines "best".
For inspiration, Thermopylae is second to none.
For history, I'd say the Battle of Tours (Martel vs the Muslims)
For pure romanticism, I'd say the Battle of Britain.
But for world strategic significance, Stalingrad was the great battle of all battles.
For inspiration, Thermopylae is second to none.
For history, I'd say the Battle of Tours (Martel vs the Muslims)
For pure romanticism, I'd say the Battle of Britain.
But for world strategic significance, Stalingrad was the great battle of all battles.
for strategic significans Tours matters more
so did Lepanto
Stalingrad is memorable for the horrible toll of lives.... it certainly was important for other reasons (stopping the German advance) but had Germnay won this battle the Soviets would have regrouped further back and made another stand. The fact is that the Soviets were willing to let the Germans keep killing Russians until the Germans ran out of bullets. Still, like I said, very important to that war.
The reason I picked Tours and Lepanto is because of the greater cultural influece. Tours stopped the Muslim advance into europe through Spain (the seiges of Viena from the east but I don't weigh them as heavily) and Lepanto denied the Turks control of the mediterranean. Had either been lost there's a significant chance the course of european history would have been vastly different. Had the Russians lost Stalingrad the Germans would be very unlikely to press their advantage and parlay that into a Soviet surrender. They remembered the end of WWI and weren't about to accept another Brest-Litovsk type treaty
Last edited:
I rather like the Battle of Laupen. It disproved the myth of the necessity of supporting the armored knights required by the feudal system. Since unlike the Battle of Margarten where the Swiss utilized friendly terrain to their advantage, the Battle of Laupen was fought on open ground giving the Burgundians full opportunity to deploy their heavy cavalry which demonstrated the clear superiority of the Swiss heavy infantry.
The battle of Laupen was the first battle where the Swiss fully deployed the Swiss Square which was to prove invincible with anything like reasonable odds until the advent of massed cannon.
The battle of Laupen was the first battle where the Swiss fully deployed the Swiss Square which was to prove invincible with anything like reasonable odds until the advent of massed cannon.
Normandy demonstrated how heavy cavalry could be defeated by terrrain and missile fire even if other factors (foolish pursuit of feints and the general problem of order with regard to the many housecarls employed) lead to the nearly infathomable victory by William.
Agincourt slightly later than Laupen was a pretty clear and decisive shift that resulted from the effective use of pike lines, artillery and terrain in the face of being overwhelmingly outnumbered.
Agincourt slightly later than Laupen was a pretty clear and decisive shift that resulted from the effective use of pike lines, artillery and terrain in the face of being overwhelmingly outnumbered.
The 6 Day War... Simultaneously ganged up on by 3 Arab nations, all with a better military alone compared to Israel and supported by every Arab nation in the world. In less then a week, Israel not only survived but conquered 1/2 of Egypt, and a decent chunk of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. From an upstart nation to a regional empire in less then a week and in a defensive war... As someone who views the Israeli Gov't as less then swamp scum, that is the most epic and admirable victory in living memory, IMO. Regardles of what they've done overall, I tip my (non-existent :giggle
hat to Israel for that 1.
Feel free to start it. But be warned, I rant to no end my opinions of Zionism. I've come across anti-semites and Islamists that had more good things to say (though their opposition is rarely as legitimate as my own). Israel I've no issue with, they have a right to exist and all but they way they exist, the Zionist party-line, ect...
Well as you said, another thread... If you dare. :giggle:
Yeah okay, perhaps. Just remember that I might disagree with you, and please remember the injunction to respect your elders, and all that antiquated crap.
Now, what to title the thread? To Jew, or not to Jew, that is the question? Soup du Jewer? Jew State or Two States?
Somewhere, whether in this group or elsewhere I don't remember at the moment, I joined a discussion regarding American Indians -- the other party felt, apparently, that the land should be returned to its original owners (or at least the earliest owners of record). Perhaps that would be a good starting point for a new discussion on Israel. Stewardship of the land is also, from my point of view, a reasonable argument for ownership.
Now, what to title the thread? To Jew, or not to Jew, that is the question? Soup du Jewer? Jew State or Two States?
Somewhere, whether in this group or elsewhere I don't remember at the moment, I joined a discussion regarding American Indians -- the other party felt, apparently, that the land should be returned to its original owners (or at least the earliest owners of record). Perhaps that would be a good starting point for a new discussion on Israel. Stewardship of the land is also, from my point of view, a reasonable argument for ownership.
Similar threads
