Top Ten Medieval Battles

hahahaha

I don't know what master's/doctoral program you've taken on history, but it typically doesn't consist of a bunch of Wikipedian-educated amateurs talking out of their ass before being methodically schooled by someone like Dachs/Masada/Owen/Baal/Plotinus.

Yes, thanks for proving my point. (btw i don't study history, but my assertion seems fairly accurate when you read a Dachsian post which goes into extreme detail).
 
No, none of Dachs' posts go into 'extreme detail'. In fact, I have not once seen a post on all of CFC by anybody that could be anything close to 'extremely detailed'. The good posters on this forum are good because they read new historical works and studies, and thus are distinguished for the accuracy of their posts. But since this is an internet forum, everybody pretty much by nature condenses information; doing anything else would require book-length posts.

This isn't a graduate-level historical forum by any means. The better posters on this forum are more engaged in responding to the myths, generally speaking. It's very rare to see lengthy debates between two knowledgeable posters over a subject that they're both 'experts' on. The only instance that comes to mind off the top of my head is a very old thread about whether it was right to call the ancient Egyptians 'black', which actually was a very in-depth conversation before it devolved into a flame war (edit: this thread).
 
No, none of Dachs' posts go into 'extreme detail'. In fact, I have not once seen a post on all of CFC by anybody that could be anything close to 'extremely detailed'. The good posters on this forum are good because they read new historical works and studies, and thus are distinguished for the accuracy of their posts.

In my CFC experience: it like 10% actual history or on topic, 20% inside jokes (guilty), 20% hate strewn arguments, and 50% trying to out troll each other.
 
This isn't a graduate-level historical forum by any means. The better posters on this forum are more engaged in responding to the myths, generally speaking. It's very rare to see lengthy debates between two knowledgeable posters over a subject that they're both 'experts' on. The only instance that comes to mind off the top of my head is a very old thread about whether it was right to call the ancient Egyptians 'black', which actually was a very in-depth conversation before it devolved into a flame war (edit: this thread, about the first ten pages or so).
Kahotep makes that same argument on literally every forum he goes to. I've seen it on two separate Total War game forums, for instance, and I'm pretty sure a similar thread was in the Paradox forums' history section as well.

If you only have one topic of conversation and if half your posts are nothing more than copypasta, detail is unavoidable.
 
Kahotep makes that same argument on literally every forum he goes to. I've seen it on two separate Total War game forums, for instance, and I'm pretty sure a similar thread was in the Paradox forums' history section as well.

If you only have one topic of conversation and if half your posts are nothing more than copypasta, detail is unavoidable.

Please lets not go down this road I have a vehement hatred of this topic. :mad:
 
In my CFC experience: it like 10% actual history or on topic, 20% inside jokes (guilty), 20% hate strewn arguments, and 50% trying to out troll each other.

Yeah, but enough about academic history, what about history right here on CivFanatics? :mischief:
______________________________

Back to the topic: How about top 10 important events with military consequences, rather than mere battles?

Like someone said earlier in the thread, the conclusion of the Armagnac-Burgundian Civil War was much more a significant loss for the English during the HYW than their loss at Orléans.
 
Kahotep makes that same argument on literally every forum he goes to. I've seen it on two separate Total War game forums, for instance, and I'm pretty sure a similar thread was in the Paradox forums' history section as well.

If you only have one topic of conversation and if half your posts are nothing more than copypasta, detail is unavoidable.

I'm not particularly fond of the posters or the actual topic of discussion. I do, however, appreciate that there was actual citation of primary evidence, and disputation over its interpretation. 99% of CFC threads generally come down to person A making unsubstantiated claims, and person B summarily refuting them by memory since he actually knows what he's talking about.
 
Back to the topic: How about top 10 important events with military consequences, rather than mere battles?

Like someone said earlier in the thread, the conclusion of the Armagnac-Burgundian Civil War was much more a significant loss for the English during the HYW than their loss at Orléans.
the conclusion of the civil war was more important than the result of the HYW
I'm not particularly fond of the posters or the actual topic of discussion. I do, however, appreciate that there was actual citation of primary evidence, and disputation over its interpretation. 99% of CFC threads generally come down to person A making unsubstantiated claims, and person B summarily refuting them by memory since he actually knows what he's talking about.
and yet, despite this, the whole argument was of decidedly lower quality than most CFC ones for whatever reason

I typically bring up interpretations of primary material in threads about the fall of the West fwiw, and these are disputed, but they're being disputed by people who don't know what they're talking about so

similar stuff happens on a much higher level in plotinus' arguments with the likes of jeelen about biblical janx
 
Yeah, but enough about academic history, what about history right here on CivFanatics? :mischief:
______________________________

Back to the topic: How about top 10 important events with military consequences, rather than mere battles?

Like someone said earlier in the thread, the conclusion of the Armagnac-Burgundian Civil War was much more a significant loss for the English during the HYW than their loss at Orléans.

Haha true story bro.

_____________________________

That is a good point. I put the Battle of Bouvines on the list because even thought the English were not major combatants, the HRE's loss directly led to the crumbling of both the Angevin Empire and King John's power. Perhaps outcomes of wars are more important than searching for the "decisive battle".
 
Didn't we briefly consider a weekly "Let's Talk About [Blah]" thread a while back? Might be worth considering to help collectively knock us into some better habits.
 
meh, I get enough of that with mannerheim in rl
 
It's very rare to see lengthy debates between two knowledgeable posters over a subject that they're both 'experts' on.
This is largely because as expertise improves, the area you are an expert on diminishes, and there becomes an increasingly small overlap between experts to dispute matters on.

The biggest reason I've become a one topic poster is because lately I've realized that in most matters that are not early modern and late medieval Ireland, I really don't know enough to pontificate.

Those areas that I do feel I have a good grip on (Fascist Ideology, Boxing history, etc.) rarely come up at all.
 
Didn't we briefly consider a weekly "Let's Talk About [Blah]" thread a while back? Might be worth considering to help collectively knock us into some better habits.
We did. I like the one De Gaul thread we managed. Anyone have a new suggestion?
 
what. The entire right wing was English.

The right flank was English knights and archers with Brabant and Palatinate infantry and knights. The Flemish made up the left flank, does that also make them major participants? The HRE center was the vast bulk of the army anyway.
 
We did. I like the one De Gaul thread we managed. Anyone have a new suggestion?
We could try talking about the Irish War of Independence, because then I might just about be able to pretend to be keeping up with the big boys. :mischief:

meh, I get enough of that with mannerheim in rl
It wasn't yourself that I was suggesting would benefit. :p
 
and yet, despite this, the whole argument was of decidedly lower quality than most CFC ones for whatever reason

At some points. Around pages 18-24ish it was really good. I concede your other points.

The right flank was English knights and archers with Brabant and Palatinate infantry and knights. The Flemish made up the left flank, does that also make them major participants?

Yes? Were Canadians not major participants in the D-Day landings?
 
Yes? Were Canadians not major participants in the D-Day landings?

Resisting the urge to insult Canada

Canada was like mid major, far more important than the random Polish or Free French units running around, but nowhere near the U.S./U.K. importance.

The reason I didn't say the English were major members of the army was that it was still an Imperial army in the largest sense. Unlike most of the English armies in the HYW which had a decidedly English-Gascon flavor.
 
Top Bottom