Which part of history fascinates you the most?

Of late Ive become somewhat obsessed with the long 19th Century, industrialisation etc.... such huge changes in the way the world worked, new countries, new empires etc etc

I am most certainly a modern history person. I used to mostly like the 20th century (and still do), but over the last year or so, I've become more fascinated with the 19th century, probably because of what I've been doing in Modern History in school.

industrialisation

I avoid that like the plague... historians, economists and anyone interested in it try to push their own agenda... and I hate that.

Currently I'm fascinated by trade between the Arab world, India, the Golden Chersonese (used broadly) and China before Europe messed it up [and rampant partisanship creeps in].

It's hard to not be enamored with the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, I think. The sheer genius of many parts of their society, mixed with their sometimes brutish behavior is a fascinating combination!

There are not more or less interesting periods of history. Just the ones you know more about and the ones you do not.

I prefer studying the pre-Roman period.

Some periods interest me more than others. I like really early prehistory (well, I will count it as "history"), like before agriculture, and I have been into World War I lately.

Yeah, it changes from time to time, of course. and place to place, generally I find European and Asian history the most interesting, if I'm compltely honest I know little about American, Australasian or African history

Classical history, especially the Hellenistic age; Byzantine history; the modern age, from 1600 onwards, with a specific focus on the 19th century.

Dachs (Or anyone else) could you recommend any good websites about the 19th century?

19th century/crusader states

Dachs (Or anyone else) could you recommend any good websites about the 19th century?
Websites? No, not really. I mostly read books. :dunno:

500 BC to 500 AD more or less summarizes the Classical era of every global civilization, which is remarkable. 1450 to 1700 is also a good time period, for Europe. Basically, the fall of Constantinople to just before industrialization and stupid peoples' revolutions.

Websites? No, not really. I mostly read books. :dunno:

Me too (Age of Capital at the moment), but I cant sit at my desk with that in my hand now can I?

Ancient history, from 3000-2500 BC to ~250 AD is by far the most interesting to me. :)

Honorary mention to the 15-17th centuries. I'm rather less interested in modern and early medieval history, although all history is interesting to me. I'd say it goes something like this for me: Ancient -> early modern (post Age of discovery/Renaissance) -> late middle ages -> early middle ages -> contemporary -> modern -> prehistory.

I'm interested in (but defnitely not very knowledgeable with): Alexander the Great to the end of the last great Hellenistic kingdom (those vile Turks!), the Warring States Periods of China and Japan, the First and Second Great Wars, and the Cold War era.

This isn't permanent, though.

Middle Eastern History beginning with the Rise of Islam through the collapse of the Abbasid Caliphate, Russian History from 1861-on, and the Roman Republic.

I avoid that like the plague... historians, economists and anyone interested in it try to push their own agenda... and I hate that.

Funny, I initially did the same. But then I realized that all those agendas around 19th century history were what made it interesting - it shows that those past events are still very relevant to our time!

WWII era by far. There are just so many incredible things that happened that time period that don't even make it into many history books.

WWII, Imperialism, (American) Civil War, Greco-Roman history are probably my top favorites. For the most part wars interest me

Funny, I initially did the same. But then I realized that all those agendas around 19th century history were what made it interesting - it shows that those past events are still very relevant to our time!

That's a nifty idea... study the agendas and motivations of the participants.

The house where Gavrilo Princip lived in Sarajevo was destroyed during the First World War. After the war, it became a museum in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was conquered by Germany in 1941 and Sarajevo became part of fascist Croatia. The Croatian fascists destroyed the house again. The Yugoslav communists under Tito established a communist Yugoslavia in 1944. The house of Gavrilo Princip became a museum again and there was another museum dedicated to him within the city of Sarajevo. During the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, the house of Gavrilo Princip was destroyed a third time by the government; no attempts to rebuild it have yet been announced. The Gavrilo Princip museum has been turned into a museum dedicated to Archduke Ferdinand and the Habsburg monarchy.

:)

Sweet, sweet irony.

Aug 11th 1986 to present

The Future.

The Future.
If the old Chinese curse 'may you live in interesting times!' has any truth to it, I'd rather the future not be interesting.

The Future isn't history.

Any period of history is interesting for me, but especially around AD 1500 onwards, outside of Europe.

Western art history from mid 1500s to early 1900s.
European history (including Russia) from the early 1700's to present day.
US history from mid 1800s to today.

Middle Eastern History beginning with the Rise of Islam through the collapse of the Abbasid Caliphate, Russian History from 1861-on, and the Roman Republic.

Not interested in the Crimean war?

Not interested in the Crimean war?
Has more to do with the emancipation of the serfs. Cheezy's a self-described socialist.

I put a high interest in the period involving the first united German State (Das Deutsche Reich) from 1871 to 1914.
Of course I don't expect any non-German to do ;), but it involves so much tragedy and vain hope for the German people and yet plays a major role for the entire world history with contributing to the First World War: the primeval catastrophe, which should change the world for ever and set the course for the 20th century (also way beyond WWII).

World War Two

http://fc64.deviantart.com/fs22/f/2008/002/0/1/World_War_Two__Simple_Version_by_AngusMcLeod.jpg

oh my god... that...is...the..funniest thing I have ever seen.

strange map fan..

For some reason Russia's use of "who" instead of "whom" annoys me, although the backwards letters and "pwning" seem fine.

The Soviet invasion of Finland was hilarious.

For some reason Russia's use of "who" instead of "whom" annoys me, although the backwards letters and "pwning" seem fine.

The backwards 'E' always annoys me. It should at least be a 'Э' or 'З'

Well, theres my stupid complaint for the day.

That comic is so funny. LIKE, LOL

Personally i prefer history of kingdom of Serbia in 19. and start of 20. century (period from 1868. and 1918.)

Hmm . . . I was preoccupied by the use of modern (ie post-WWII) borders for pre-WWII Germany and Poland.

Hmm . . . I was preoccupied by the use of modern (ie post-WWII) borders for pre-WWII Germany and Poland.

Better to be preoccupied than occupied.

Prefer the 20th Century as a whole, as well as Ancient Rome. Very fascinating periods.

For me: a) Roman period, about 200 BC - 200 A.D. --- Roman
b) Egypt, pre-Alexander --- Egypt
c) Middle East --- pre-Persian empires: Assyrian, Babylonian, Sumerian, etc.
d) American Civil War
e) 20th C---the WWs, military, political, cultural, economic,scientific,literature

My favorite is the colonial age and the enlightenment

As well as modern history in general, I also like post-1000 AD-ish religious history, particularly Christian history.

I would love to live a 100 Years from 1870 to 1970 and see just how much the world changes.

1750 to 1850 would be awesome too. Seven Years War, American Revolution, Napoleonic War.

1750 to 1850 would be awesome too. Seven Years War, American Revolution, Napoleonic War.
And the Year of Revolutions to cap it all.

I've got two eras that interest me in particular:
The Age of Colonization (1400s - 1700) -- everyone had a stake in the New World, and it all could've gone so many different ways.

The Gilded Age (roughly late 1860s to 1920) -- in some ways this is really the birth of modernity, close to our own time but somehow...different. I think this is a more useful category than the too-narrow (and often inaccurate) "Victorian Age" label.

American Revolution up until the American Civil War

Almost anything before 1950.

Funny, I initially did the same. But then I realized that all those agendas around 19th century history were what made it interesting - it shows that those past events are still very relevant to our time!

Wow I concluded the same and eventually became more interested in the 19th century.


My interest in history, politics, and sociology was first ignited through my early years high school interest in military. (Wars, tactics, immediate effects of the war etc..)

I digress, currently I am reading history texts of the 2000 BCE- 1000 BCE range. I am not sure what I era I find the "most interesting."

The renaissance, because in it the most influential discoveries for the future generations were made (well, at least in Europe; Chinese people knew about the Americas as early as ca. 300 CE).

Did they discover America in 1421 as well?

Did they discover America in 1421 as well?
What are you talking about? 1421? :confused:

Yeah, 1421, when Zheng He apparently used his massive fleet to cross the Pacific to invade Vinland. You should know this, this is HISTORY.

this is HISTORY.

According to the Peoples Republic of China, Propaganda Office, Gavin Menzies Division.

If I'm not mistaken, even the PRC doesn't agree with Menzies' hypothesis. Which is saying a lot for a nation who wants monopoly on every single invention and discovery known to mankind

If I'm not mistaken, even the PRC doesn't agree with Menzies' hypothesis. Which is saying a lot for a nation who wants monopoly on every single invention and discovery known to mankind

You are mistaken, Menzies runs the PRC, it is his child, his prodigy, in his possibly fictional reality.

My favorite periods (someone else chose three, so I will be uncreative and choose three as well).
1. 1848 Revolutions to WWI (Long 19th century is interesting but things slow down between the Congress of Vienna to the 1848 Revolutions)
2. Wiemar Germany
3. Ottoman History from the Fall of Constantinople to the death of Suleiman.

My favorite periods (someone else chose three, so I will be uncreative and choose three as well).
1. 1848 Revolutions to WWI (Long 19th century is interesting but things slow down between the Congress of Vienna to the 1848 Revolutions)
2. Wiemar Germany
3. Ottoman History from the Fall of Constantinople to the death of Suleiman.

Ottoman History is awesome especially because the first 10 sultans were all warrior kings!

Mehmed II, Selim the Grim and Suleiman are among the most epic reigns ever, especially Selim! He ruled for like what? Less than a decade and yet took over Egypt!

This is probably pre-history but I think it would be fascinating if one could observe the early stages of city development, say in the Near East or regions thereabout. It'd be cool to be time-traveler to watch a small family group become a larger extend family clan, than a tribe, etc. I think witnessing Ur's founding or Catal Huyuk's development could be worthwhile though we'd have to fast forward a lot!

Well, by definition if it predates writing it is not "history", I think. But it is still an important part of the human past and I also find it fascinating.

This is probably pre-history but I think it would be fascinating if one could observe the early stages of city development, say in the Near East or regions thereabout. It'd be cool to be time-traveler to watch a small family group become a larger extend family clan, than a tribe, etc. I think witnessing Ur's founding or Catal Huyuk's development could be worthwhile though we'd have to fast forward a lot!

I dont think the first cities emerged by any form of desire or design. I think a long time ago someone said "What a nice place to grow food." built a single mud shelter and settled down with a wife. Then someone else came by and goes "What a nice place to grow food" and so on.

Its not really "Here I shall lay a Stone where in the Future a Great City will Stand!"

Would be rather boring to watch, even if you fastforward thousands of years. At least in my opinion.

I am interested in the rise of Rome. I admit that it was partially caused by playing Rome: Totalwar!

I dont think the first cities emerged by any form of desire or design. I think a long time ago someone said "What a nice place to grow food." built a single mud shelter and settled down with a wife. Then someone else came by and goes "What a nice place to grow food" and so on.

Its not really "Here I shall lay a Stone where in the Future a Great City will Stand!"

Would be rather boring to watch, even if you fastforward thousands of years. At least in my opinion.
? Oh, I never suggested that the first cities emerged by design or anticipation of a great future city. Or that one would observe a few random mud shelters and hope that a great city would rise.

I specifically mentioned known early cities, fast-forwarding to watch their various stages as Ur or Catal Huyuk grew, skipping the decades and centuries of little or no change. In a manner similar to time-lapse photos of plants growing.

I think a historian with the ability to identify turning points, key resources used, technology discoveries, animals domesticated, cultural values adopted, governments formed, religions founded, etc. would be able to give us a fascinating account. She or he would spare us the centuries of "no change". They do attempt this now through archaelogical excavation, but if one could observe (again, I'm not saying you watch thirty years or three hundred years of mud shelters in real time.) that would be something else.

The cold war as a whole is also fascinating. Like a game of chess punctuated by occasional carpet bombing.

? Oh, I never suggested that the first cities emerged by design or anticipation of a great future city. Or that one would observe a few random mud shelters and hope that a great city would rise.

I specifically mentioned known early cities, fast-forwarding to watch their various stages as Ur or Catal Huyuk grew, skipping the decades and centuries of little or no change. In a manner similar to time-lapse photos of plants growing.

I think a historian with the ability to identify turning points, key resources used, technology discoveries, animals domesticated, cultural values adopted, governments formed, religions founded, etc. would be able to give us a fascinating account. She or he would spare us the centuries of "no change". They do attempt this now through archaelogical excavation, but if one could observe (again, I'm not saying you watch thirty years or three hundred years of mud shelters in real time.) that would be something else.

No i mean, because they are built base on pure luck. Its growth is a bit...uh monotone.

When I started reading this I had the impression we were talking about which period of history would we choose to "spend a lifetime in" (let's say 80 years of healthy adulthood) - rather than an entire era we happen to be interested in. So going on that criteria, and assuming we were adults armed with our current knowledge, we would have an opportunity to influence or change history, which creates a paradox. But all that aside; these would be my choices (humour me, I like lists):

Update:

Roaming the earth in the Pliocene era c. 2-4 million years ago, when the earth was a sub-tropical paradise, the Sahara was a forested savannah, and the sea level was lower, and witness the waterfall when the Mediterranean filled. Probably would not survive the many natural predators and would only have Ramapithecus for company, who maybe could be convinced you are God and not eat you, especially if you knew exactly where to point out a massive supernova that passed within 150 light years of Earth.

Inter-glacial period c. 200,000 years ago, when Homo Sapiens and Neanderthalensis lived more or less side by side. Leave some artifact like a black monolith to confound future anthropologists, and give rise to theories that we were visited by aliens.

In the wake of the last Ice Age through a wildly changing landscape, see the dispersal of humanity from the Caucasus region, lead a tribe to the site of Byzantium and plant the seeds of a future dynasty.

A Mesopotamian mariner in the time of people who knew Gilgamesh or Sargon. Explore the Persian Gulf and the enigmatic Indus Valley culture, see the Pyramids in their original state. There would probably be no better time to make an early play for complete world domination. At least 5 of the world's 6 cradles of civilization (other than the new world) were within easy reach.

The first wave of Iron Age Invasions - 1190 - 1110 BCE or thereabouts. An extremely brutal time, but with no equal for nations on the move. You might get to see the Fall of Troy, solve the riddle of the Sea Peoples, the collapse of Hittite and Mycenaean cultures, and witness Judea in the time of the Judges. A lot of interesting stuff happening in the eastern Mediterranean there has been much speculation about.

Classical Greece - 500 - 420 BCE, well this is stretching it, but an opportunity to take part in the Ionian Revolt and Persian Wars, and seeing the different city states, including the first true democracies, and the Temple of Artemis. I probably would have argued with philosophers and tried to broker a peace between Athens and Sparta in the Peloponnesian War.

Accompanying Alexander the Great as a scientific advisor - try to prolong or save his life and convince him the earth was round.

Accompanying Hannibal - the odds of surviving would not be so good, but I would have probably tried to help him conquer Rome.

Palestine at the time of Christ - to see the man behind the myth, or the divinity behind the man. See the decadence of Imperial Rome and try to prevent the horrors of the Jewish revolt. This wouldn't be necessarily a fun trip, but an enlightening one.

The barbarian migrations from about 400-480 AD. So many changes and epic treks in the history of nations. From the last victories of Stilicho, the sack(s) of Rome, defeat of the Huns at Catalonian Fields, sailing with the pirate empire of Genseric, to Theodoric dethroning the last pretender to the Imperial throne. Who knows, maybe even meet the future King Arthur, and play Merlin.

The court of Justinian of the Byzantine Empire - William Butler Yeats seemed to think this was a fascinating period to be in. See the Hagia Sophia take shape. Maybe I would accompany Belisarius as his aide de camp and try to make his life a little easier.

Accompany the Vikings on raids or trade missions from the Ukraine and Constantinople to the New World. You'd get to see a lot of what was going on in a dim misty part of human history, plus keep a really awesome travelogue, and have hot Swedish babes waiting for me at home.

The Crusades - 1095-1175, and 1185-1265. In general, keep them out of trouble. As guide and advisor (with the blessing of the Pope and Alexius Comnenus) Prevent the worst atrocities. Gather the scattered parties of reinforcements that followed the First Crusade and the 2nd Crusade, before attempting to cross Anatolia instead of being massacred piecemeal. In the latter period, assassinate Guy de Lusignan and support Balian of Ibelin in a Peace Treaty with Saladin, avoiding Tiberias. Failing that, join King Richard. Later, save Constantinople from the 4th crusade by convincing them to continue to Acre, and join the Muslims against the Mongols of Hulagu Khan.

Early exploration was actually a lot of tedious drudgery and harsh conditions, but being the first to make contact with the Incas after walking across South America, and changing the course of history would be worthwhile if given the chance.

The great era of British colonial expansion and exploration 1820-1900. After reading the story of Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton - the man had adventures on every continent but Antarctica, including the Old West and the heart of Mecca. Would have been hard to keep up with him unless I knew 7 languages and could convince Muslims I was a green eyed Pashtu Sufi. But there were lots of similar opportunities in "the Great Game" at this time to explore the darkest corners of the earth and have a position of influence in many cultures. Plus, Richard became a connoisseur of Middle Eastern, Indian and African harems and brothels (as long as I had some penicillin). Along the way I could have met the French Impressionists, who knows maybe even play God and roll the dice by assassinating someone like Bismarck or Lenin to see how things turn out. As a final altruistic motive I would have made a campaign of public outrage at the British involvement in the Boer War, and met Gandhi.

WWII - just old enough to meet some of the literary figures of the Spanish Civil War, but enlist as a Spitfire pilot in the Battle of Britain, and get transferred to N. Africa and the Italian campaigns. Get to see the remarkable social changes traveling in Europe post war - see the iron curtain go up, the growth of avante-garde counter culture etc.

Or an early baby boomer who comes of age in the late 50s, and experiences the 60s first hand. All in all a more prosperous, innocent, and optimistic time for most people on this continent, (and you would be free from the nuclear terror, Yeah its a bit over the top nostalgic, you'd still know better). See Elvis and the Beatles live, to name a few, and probably write a controversial book or two that would warn the world to avoid some of the pitfalls and crises we face today. I might be still alive to enjoy it too !

Maybe I would accompany Belisarius as his aide de camp and try to make his life a little easier.
It would be hard for you to be a better historian than Prokopios. ;)

It would be hard for you to be a better historian than Prokopios. ;)

Sounds like somebody I should take the time to read /

19th century and middle ages

I'm more interested in the history of the world before there were humans. But I'm also interested in origins of humans and prehistory. The most recent periods I'm interested in are ancient histories of India, Persia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and to some extent Rome. These only because of the religions, literature and culture of those civilizations.

Anyway, the more I know about recent human history, the less I become interested in.

I'm more interested in the history of the world before there were humans. But I'm also interested in origins of humans and prehistory.

I also have a few in the category of early humans. There would be a real connection with our earthly origins - and the beauty of the world at different times as well. There are a few Nexus points where our species could have gone extinct, or made great beginnings.

I also have a few in the category of early humans. There would be a real connection with our earthly origins - and the beauty of the world at different times as well. There are a few Nexus points where our species could have gone extinct, or made great beginnings.

I agree like the Toba catastrophe theory. It's so interesting to find out how precarious life really was and especially so if you even go back further in the evolutionary ladder.

I like a lot of history.... actually... I can say I like most World History. I find Asian history, Pre-Columbian N.+S. American history very interesting, Middle Eastern history is also really cool and interesting. The only history that I can say that I find boring and dislike is the period of Europe from right after the fall of Rome until Napoleon. In between that, the European Middle Ages and Renaissance, I find, just really boring... and i don't why... it just is. Other than that, classical Europe (Rome, Greece, etc.) is really cool, and after Napoleon Europe starts to get interesting again.

I'm terrible at choosing favorites or most interesting things, so I make lists :D (in order from most interesting to least)

1) Pre-Columbian North +South America (Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, etc.)

2) East Asia (China, Mongolia, Japan, India etc.)

3) Middle Eastern (Israeli, Persian, Umayyads, Ottomans, etc.)

4) Classical Europe (Rome, Greece, Carthage, etc.)

5) 19th Century and Modern Europe (Napoleon, WWI, WWII, etc.)

6) African (Ethiopia, Egypt, Mali, Zulu, etc.)

7) Medieval Europe

8) Renaissance Europe

Yeah you've got some interesting choices. Some of my choices, like yours, are less historical than just a setting we are interested in. For instance; a lot of Pre-Columbian Americas and sub-Saharan Africa pre-1800 there are only scattered, incomplete historical records, illuminated from outside by a few coastal explorers, or legends at best.

Yeah you've got some interesting choices. Some of my choices, like yours, are less historical than just a setting we are interested in. For instance; a lot of Pre-Columbian Americas and sub-Saharan Africa pre-1800 there are only scattered, incomplete historical records, illuminated from outside by a few coastal explorers, or legends at best.

Well, the parts of pre-columbian history that I like are really just the Mayans, Incans, and to a lesser extent the Aztecs. Since the Incas didn't have a written language, info is hard to come by, but before the Spanish conquered them, some of the explorers still took down some info, and we know a lot from their ruins (Machu Piccu), mostly their massive engineering poweress. Other stuff we know about the Incas come from oral traditions and stuff. Though the Mayans are even more interesting, since they had a written language, and we can easily learn a lot about them.

Africa, I'm not that interested in, though the Zulu are pretty interesting, and so are some of the Islamic states in western Africa (Mali).

True enough. The Incas especially, I think were very cool. Also the Anasazi people (pre-Pueblos) when you go to places like Mesa Verde and many other sites in the 4 corners area. And the West Coast Indians and Algonquin/Iroquois had a well-developing culture.

My personal favourite is the time that can be lumped together as The Age of Sail. The true formative years for Europe and the Americas, coupled with religious strife, rising nationalism, revolution, and Whitey trying to subjugate everyone he sees.

I'd wager that I'd enjoy the period ranging as far back as 1000AD, but I simply don't know enough about it.


Not interested in the Crimean war?


It's not an overly interesting war, at least in the Crimea. The British bungle supply lines for a while, a few indecisive battles, followed by a long siege, and then the obvious conclusion. The real action is everywhere else.

In my opinion, the political game is actually the most interesting; nobody really wanted to fight the war, most of all Nicholas, but with some vague definitions and personal grudges, we get what we get.

Oddly enough though (for us commonwealthers anyway), it's a damn good thing that war went as poorly as it did, or Britain, and likely France would have taken a much bigger licking than they did in the opening stages of WWI.

My personal favourite is the time that can be lumped together as The Age of Sail. The true formative years for Europe and the Americas, coupled with religious strife, rising nationalism, revolution, and Whitey trying to subjugate everyone he sees.

I'd wager that I'd enjoy the period ranging as far back as 1000AD, but I simply don't know enough about it.



It's not an overly interesting war, at least in the Crimea. The British bungle supply lines for a while, a few indecisive battles, followed by a long siege, and then the obvious conclusion. The real action is everywhere else.

In my opinion, the political game is actually the most interesting; nobody really wanted to fight the war, most of all Nicholas, but with some vague definitions and personal grudges, we get what we get.

Oddly enough though (for us commonwealthers anyway), it's a damn good thing that war went as poorly as it did, or Britain, and likely France would have taken a much bigger licking than they did in the opening stages of WWI.

Well to start off with, Im not really all that big on the military operations/historical battles part of history, Im more likely to be interested in, like you said, the political game.
I guess WWI and II might be an exception to this statement, because the battles and commanders are so interesting. Though Im sure some people would disagree about WWI being interesting.

Well to start off with, Im not really all that big on the military operations/historical battles part of history, Im more likely to be interested in, like you said, the political game.
I guess WWI and II might be an exception to this statement, because the battles and commanders are so interesting. Though Im sure some people would disagree about WWI being interesting.
I would claim that the First World War is more interesting than the Second because it's not so damn overdone.

I would claim that the First World War is more interesting than the Second because it's not so damn overdone.

First World War? That was probably the most pointless war in history... I mean really? A Bosnian-Serb nationalist kills the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, so lets all fight Germany and the Central Powers! Plus, WWI wasn't even much of a world war, look at these two maps of participants in WWI and WWII
(for the first image, most of Africa were still colonies of Europe, so those couldn't be counted towards it being most of the world at war, just more European powers)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/WWI-re.png

and

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/WWII.png

Anyways, check out this hilarious article from the Onion :D

First World War? That was probably the most pointless war in history... I mean really? A Bosnian-Serb nationalist kills the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, so lets all fight Germany and the Central Powers!
There are many pointless wars. That wasn't one of them. The war was not fought solely because elements of the Serbian government assassinated the heir to the Austrian throne. That's actually a large part of the reason as to why it is interesting to me: the entire shape of the July Crisis and of the events of early August 1914.
Plus, WWI wasn't even much of a world war, look at these two maps of participants in WWI and WWII
(for the first image, most of Africa were still colonies of Europe, so those couldn't be counted towards it being most of the world at war, just more European powers)
Both of them had major engagements all over the world. The 1914 naval campaign was quite large in scope, actually. And there was actually fighting in many of those African colonies, just like in World War II, so I don't see how it doesn't make sense to 'count' the colonies - especially when many of them contributed manpower to their metropolies' forces on the European front lines as well. They were colonies during the Second World War as well so it's silly to be able to count them for one conflict but not the other. ;)

Besides, many countries declared war in the Second World War near the end, in late 1944 and early 1945, and contributed little to no troops or resources to the war effort. Doesn't make much sense to be able to count them either. :p

For me, the 17th and 18th centuries. And the Crusader States of the Levant

There are many pointless wars. That wasn't one of them. The war was not fought solely because elements of the Serbian government assassinated the heir to the Austrian throne. That's actually a large part of the reason as to why it is interesting to me: the entire shape of the July Crisis and of the events of early August 1914.

Both of them had major engagements all over the world. The 1914 naval campaign was quite large in scope, actually. And there was actually fighting in many of those African colonies, just like in World War II, so I don't see how it doesn't make sense to 'count' the colonies - especially when many of them contributed manpower to their metropolies' forces on the European front lines as well. They were colonies during the Second World War as well so it's silly to be able to count them for one conflict but not the other. ;)

Besides, many countries declared war in the Second World War near the end, in late 1944 and early 1945, and contributed little to no troops or resources to the war effort. Doesn't make much sense to be able to count them either. :p


Well, they are both interesting in their own ways... I was thinking more along the lines that they weren't separate countries and were just forced into the conflict because their homeland was in, while they decided to declare war by themselves for WWII. I was always taught that it was b/c of the whole assassination... not b/c of anything else. Whats the July crisis though?

I dont really consider it all that more pointless than any other war.
Not that it matters to me, the tangle of alliances are quite interesting from a political standpoint, and for some reason I find the German- Ottoman relationship to be nothing short of fascinating, but thats just me.

Whats the July crisis though?

The course of events between July 23, when the ultimatum was issued to Serbia, and August 1, when Germany declared war on France and Russia.

Well, they are both interesting in their own ways... I was thinking more along the lines that they weren't separate countries and were just forced into the conflict because their homeland was in, while they decided to declare war by themselves for WWII.
Well, they technically weren't really separate countries in the Second World War either. ;)
I was always taught that it was b/c of the whole assassination... not b/c of anything else. Whats the July crisis though?
There were a lot of things that were building up in Europe before the First World War that induced the various participants to fight in 1914. There's obviously the nationalism one that every mediocre historian likes to cite first and foremost, compounded by Social Darwinism. There was also the Anglo-German naval arms race of the past ten-odd years (compounded by Anglo-German colonial spheres of influence clashing somewhat, especially in the Middle East), and the Franco-German rivalry over Alsace-Lorraine. Russia and Austria-Hungary were rivals in the Balkans. Italy wanted stuff back from Austria-Hungary. All of the participants had social problems that they could use a jolly nationalistic war to quiet down (nationalism at this juncture trumps class consciousness). There's that nice alliance system as well which linked various parties to one another, so as to keep any one power from being able to go to war with any one other power without other powers intervening. That sort of thing.

The July Crisis was the diplomatic maneuvering in the Great Power capitals that resulted from the Habsburg ultimatum to Serbia following the assassination. Austria-Hungary's foreign ministry saw this as an opportunity to gain a measure of control over Serbia, which was being dangerously assertive in the Balkans and which had previously been a Habsburg puppet state (until 1903). Serbia made an equivocal response over the ultimatum, which allowed the crisis to be prolonged by negotiation. Russia started leaning towards honoring its obligation to its ally (and Balkanian sockpuppet) Serbia. Without Serbia they wouldn't be able to project as much power into the Balkans, which was Russia's main field of interest. They'd also lose a lot of street cred at home, where strikes were increasing in number and intensity. As the Russian government looked to be cornering Austria-Hungary, Germany stepped in to give the Habsburg monarchy a guarantee that they'd back them up, worried that in a one-on-one between the Habsburgs and the Russians, the Habsburgs would lose. (Further, the Germans were worried about their colonial project, the Berlin-Baghdad Railroad, which passed through the Balkans and which would be endangered by any extension of Russian power into the region.) And then France started getting worried that Russia would be alone against Germany, so they started making noises about backing up the Russians over Serbia. And since the German war plan against a Franco-Russian alliance involved invading Belgium to hit the French in the side, the British (who were against anybody getting control of Belgium, because Belgium makes a good springboard for an invasion of Britain) started edging closer to the French. There had been a few diplomatic crises before in the previous years (the 1908-9 Bosnian annexation crisis, the 1911 Moroccan crisis, the 1912 and 1913 standoffs over the Balkan Wars) but where those had been somewhat equivocally resolved this one wasn't, and boom go the cannons.

First World War? That was probably the most pointless war in history... I mean really? A Bosnian-Serb nationalist kills the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, so lets all fight Germany and the Central Powers! Plus, WWI wasn't even much of a world war, look at these two maps of participants in WWI and WWII
(for the first image, most of Africa were still colonies of Europe, so those couldn't be counted towards it being most of the world at war, just more European powers)

I feel it was pretty pointless in hindsight as well, or maybe the right words are: more unnecessary, avoidable and wasteful than most wars. But the topic is still of interest to us, maybe for these reasons, as all history is of potential interest to us. Regarding the range of the conflict, certainly the vast majority of it was confined to Europe. They never called it WWI until WWII, (fancy that :mischief:) it was simply known as the Great War, supposedly to end all wars. But the degree of participation was still widespread globally, and Dachs already made the point about colonial empires. They were caught up in it as well.

There were engagements worldwide, but to complete the comparison with WWII, it was pretty limited, obviously since Japan was our ally in this one. There is the Middle East campaign in Palestine, the Levant, and Mesopotamia of course, which compares to that of North Africa in WWII, and the Caucasus front, but Gallipoli on the European side was a bigger operation than both of those. The Tanganyika campaign is very notable because at one time it tied down about 6 allied divisions, but other than that there was only a brief resistance in SW Africa (Namibia) and Tsingtao in the far east. Likewise the naval campaign; von Spee's small cruiser squadron had some success in the Pacific before being annihilated at the Falklands. Only the dramatic escape and depredations of the Emden, and a couple of low rate merchant raiders, continued for awhile. Even the submarine war was mostly confined to the western approaches of Europe.

Actually the Seven Years War was the first real world war, with major actions in North America, the Caribbean, India, and even a few places in Africa and the Pacific Rim. Ditto for the American Revolution, though it was confined in Europe to naval engagements or joint operations like Gibraltar. Much more so the Napoleonic Wars; add South America and the Middle East, and you could include the War of 1812.

I think there is a different kind of emphasis when we say WWI was 'pointless', or unnecessary. As Dachs succinctly stated, there are many pertinent reasons it escalated. Europe was a powder keg ready to blow, something probably would have happened sooner or later anyway. I can only speak to what did happen, but the points I want to make are on a different level.

The outcome of these alliances and cross-ultimatums was far out of proportion to the original cassus belli . There was no act of aggression by a major power. It lacked the just cause for the nations of Europe to engage in a dust-up, just like the pre-nationalism alliance wars of previous centuries. With a taste of what war would be like in the modern age starting at Crimea, Solferino, Sadowa and others, one would think a minimum of diplomatic effort could have kept this to a regional dispute with both Russia and Austria-Hungary able to protect their interests, and other parties arbitrating. But Germany was ambitious, and France was spoiling for another round in the Franco-Prussian War, as long as there were some powerful allies to back her. Whatever the reasons, the nations cheerfully mobilized for what they thought would be a short, decisive war; and their leaders failed them again by inadequately anticipating what they were getting in to. As a percentage of those engaged, WWI by far exceeded the casualty rates suffered by the participants of WWII. Even the percentages of Russia and Germany were at least comparable, (not counting Japan - since its involvement in WWI was little more than a police action by comparison). The total death and disabled toll to Britain and its Commonwealth allies was three times as high, and to France there is no comparison. The territory that changed hands, was again completely disproportionate to the cost; a band of mud-soaked fields 30-50 miles in depth on the western front, and mostly marsh and woodland along the borders of the eastern front, before the Russian collapse. What did it gain ? The realignment of Germany's borders to pre-Bismarck days, the collapse of the old orders, and fragmentation of the empires into new states. In its wake came the 'Spanish' influenza epidemic, the Bolshevik revolution, and the rise of Fascism. Making it for me, the most lethal, and futile, conflict in history. Remembrance Day (Veteran's Day in the US) marks its end, but I think the original meaning was lost. No wonder the writers of the day coined the term the 'Lost Generation'. :sad: In 20 years the western democracies would fail to prevent an even bigger war. But this time there was little of the disillusionment and demoralization of WWI, except for the Axis once they started losing badly.

Sorry for getting on the soap box and saying what you all doubtless already know, but I just had to add my own perspective. There aren't many good films on WWI, but of course there is the story told from a German soldiers point of view All Quiet on the Western Front Both the original and the remake with Richard Thomas and Ernest Borgnine are highly recommended, along with Kubrick's Paths of Glory. Even the modest budget Canadian production Passchendaele is worth seeing, that 'miracle' really happened apparently.

It's not like Germany could have fought a global war. However hard she tried to expand the conflict and strike at the soft bits of the allies.

Mmmm... Good question. I'm between the Augustan Age and the Scientific Revolution. However, the reign of Ashoka or Qin Shi Huangdi would have been also cool periods to live. Finally, the age of the three unifiers of Japan (Oda Nobuanaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu) and the golden age of Angkor under the Khmer Empire are also at the top of my list.

After listening to this series of podcasts (easily the best ones I've heard), I've become a big fan of the Byzantine empire. Special focus on the Justinian/Belisarius attempted reconquest of the West, Heraclius and the last of the Roman/Persian wars (after which Islamic Arabs picked up the pieces), and the final siege of Constantinople. Great podcast, suggest it for everyone.

http://www.12byzantinerulers.com/

After listening to this series of podcasts (easily the best ones I've heard), I've become a big fan of the Byzantine empire. Special focus on the Justinian/Belisarius attempted reconquest of the West, Heraclius and the last of the Roman/Persian wars (after which Islamic Arabs picked up the pieces), and the final siege of Constantinople. Great podcast, suggest it for everyone.

You were lost and now found!

It's not like Germany could have fought a global war. However hard she tried to expand the conflict and strike at the soft bits of the allies.

No - if anything Germany was far more vulnerable globally than the allies were. Their colonies, other than Tanganyika, were easily picked off. They actually had some pretty choice pieces in Africa and the Pacific, but they wrere greedy for more. It was bad strategic foresight to risk losing them all, the only assets that really justified the investment in a High Seas Fleet, which they also lost.

No - if anything Germany was far more vulnerable globally than the allies were. Their colonies, other than Tanganyika, were easily picked off. They actually had some pretty choice pieces in Africa and the Pacific, but they wrere greedy for more. It was bad strategic foresight to risk losing them all, the only assets that really justified the investment in a High Seas Fleet, which they also lost.

Germany had written of the colonies in just about any wartime scenario conceivable, they were not allocated serious numbers of troops or anything worth anything at all. It's fortunate that in one case the Hun were to stubborn for their own good :p.

However, Germany did try and expand the war beyond the European theater. She made a number of attempts to woo peripheral nations in on her side to feed on the allies undefended colonies and strike at them in other ways. She was in a position to promise them whatever it was they took, it's not like she was going to be able to hold the accumulated colonies of France and Britain (or even France for that matter). If she could expand the theaters of the war she benefited, if she couldn't well it didn't hurt her she was already at war and didn't really risk anything by being caught in most cases.

After listening to this series of podcasts (easily the best ones I've heard), I've become a big fan of the Byzantine empire. Special focus on the Justinian/Belisarius attempted reconquest of the West, Heraclius and the last of the Roman/Persian wars (after which Islamic Arabs picked up the pieces), and the final siege of Constantinople. Great podcast, suggest it for everyone.

http://www.12byzantinerulers.com/

Thanks - great link !

Sounds like something to listen to after I finish up with ma boy Treadgold's monster A History of the Byzantine State and Society. ;)

Actually the Seven Years War was the first real world war, with major actions in North America, the Caribbean, India, and even a few places in Africa and the Pacific Rim. Ditto for the American Revolution, though it was confined in Europe to naval engagements or joint operations like Gibraltar. Much more so the Napoleonic Wars; add South America and the Middle East, and you could include the War of 1812.




Actually I consider the Mongol invasions to be the first world war, with action taking place in Asia, Africa, Europe, India, Indonesia, Japan, etc. Really the only place that wasn't touched by the Mongolia was the Americas, which in 1200 no one knew about (except the natives :D )

I've been looking into the Indo-Greeks as of recent. Some interesting stuff. It's a shame they left so little stuff of use to historians behind!

Actually I consider the Mongol invasions to be the first world war, with action taking place in Asia, Africa, Europe, India, Indonesia, Japan, etc. Really the only place that wasn't touched by the Mongolia was the Americas, which in 1200 no one knew about (except the natives :D )

The thing is that the Mongolian invasions weren't one giant war. They were a series of wars that took place over a few centuries. Perhaps you're correct in saying that the Mongols were the first to invade almost every part of the globe, but the Seven Years' War was the first conflict where all of that happened simultaneously and for the same reason.

The thing is that the Mongolian invasions weren't one giant war. They were a series of wars that took place over a few centuries. Perhaps you're correct in saying that the Mongols were the first to invade almost every part of the globe, but the Seven Years' War was the first conflict where all of that happened simultaneously and for the same reason.
War of the Grand Alliance pl0x

War of the Grand Alliance pl0x

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it confined to just North America and Western Europe?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it confined to just North America and Western Europe?
And the West Indies, with associated conflicts in the Balkans. But if you want more than just that you don't have to go all the way to the Seven Years' War. The preceding conflict, that of the Austrian Succession, also involved fighting in India, North America, and multiple European theaters.

Latin American history, post-Columbus, is something I enjoy a lot. Especially the Revolutionary and Cold War eras. With honorable mention towards the War of the Triple Alliance.

Grand Alliance actions, outside of Europe must have been pretty minor though. I think there was one failed English attempt on Quebec, and maybe an attack on Jamaica or something. 7 Year's War in North America was the French and Indian War, the dramatic conclusion to that 200 year old rivalry in Canada.

PS: "pl0x" ?

Grand Alliance actions, outside of Europe must have been pretty minor though. I think there was one failed English attempt on Quebec, and maybe an attack on Jamaica or something. 7 Year's War in North America was the French and Indian War, the dramatic conclusion to that 200 year old rivalry in Canada.
Again: I direct you to the War of the Austrian Succession. ;)
PS: "pl0x" ?
Please -> pls -> plz -> plx -> pl0x.

But if you want more than just that you don't have to go all the way to the Seven Years' War. The preceding conflict, that of the Austrian Succession, also involved fighting in India, North America, and multiple European theaters.

Yes, but not Africa.

Yes, but not Africa.
What's with all of the queer definitions? Can I say that no war has truly been a world war until World War I because none of them involved major actions in South America? :confused:

I guess nobody specified how large or widespread the actions had to be. Just about all of the European wars had a counterpart in North America.

Europe => North America
War of the Grand Alliance => King William's War
War of the Spanish Succession => Queen Anne's War
War of the Austrian Succession => War of Jenkin's Ear
Seven Year's War => French and Indian War
? ? => American Revolution
Napoleonic Wars => War of 1812

EDIT: and I wouldn't be surprised if there is one for the War of the Polish Succession too !

What's with all of the queer definitions? Can I say that no war has truly been a world war until World War I because none of them involved major actions in South America? :confused:

I guess the definition of "world war" would count the Americas as one continent? I don't know.

Then I guess we are really screwed, because other than a few submarines offshore, there was no land action in the Americas in either of the two world wars.

Then I guess we are really screwed, because other than a few submarines offshore, there was no land action in the Americas in either of the two world wars.
Battle of the Falklands, dude. Pretty significant. ;)

Or Coronel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Coronel), the lead-up battle to the Falklands.

And who can forget the Battle of the Rio del Plata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Plate)?

Rio Del Plata is a shining example of New Zealands naval tradition, the enemy scuttled themselves out of fear :p

I tip my hat. (we need a smiley for that). Besides, I forgot the important point was that the participants were global, and in both WW's there were pretty significant participants in the Americas. Anyway, I think geopolitically if not geographically, the mid-Pacific volcanic islands of Hawaii are part of North America. That brings Pearl Harbour and Midway into the picture.

Either the World War 1 Era or the first Pax Romana

Since I'm currently playing E:TW my favourite historical period is 18th century Europe now.

I wish I had an awesome cartoon to illustrate why, like my previous post. :(

Maybe a focused "day in the life" would be most interesting: the murder of Caesar, the battle in Teutoberg Wald, something that could be said to have a start and a finish.

How are these for a few:

V-E day, London, 1945.
V-P day, New York, 1945.
Salamis, 480 BC
Midway, 1942 from Yorktown
Rastenburg, July 20, 1944
Berlin Wall, 1990
New Year's Eve 2000, Paris
Golgotha
Santorini, 1450 BC, from Crete
Sack of Rome, 410 AD wth the Goths
Fall of Constantinople, 1453 AD with the Venetians
Cortes first entry into Tenochtitlan
Bastille Day, 1789
Chicxulub Cretaceous-Tertiary Event, from Baja California

Early middle ages, Mediterranean

How are these for a few:

V-E day, London, 1945.
V-P day, New York, 1945.
Salamis, 480 BC
Midway, 1942 from Yorktown
Rastenburg, July 20, 1944
Berlin Wall, 1990
New Year's Eve 2000, Paris
Golgotha
Santorini, 1450 BC, from Crete
Sack of Rome, 410 AD wth the Goths
Fall of Constantinople, 1453 AD with the Venetians
Cortes first entry into Tenochtitlan
Bastille Day, 1789
Chicxulub Cretaceous-Tertiary Event, from Baja California
:goodjob: Interesting choices all!

The causes and effects of WW I.

Interestingly, my interest in WW I started after reading a long essay here on these history forums written by a member as to the causes.

I tend to pick and choose a lot but favour European/North American history from the Napoleonic wars onwards.

I would say any period of hsitory from c.4000 B.C. to 1945 A.D. When modern history programs come on the T.V. and start talking about the 60's and the bleeping Beatles, I can never find the remote fast enough. The world had a lot more character up until the end of World War II: Spanish Inquisition, Black Death, Catapults, empires. What do we have now? Simon Cowel and Ubisoft... the world needs a good thrashing.

I find WWII fascinating.