most important wars

[Pillager]

I disagree. Look at what happened in Europe after the threat of Napoleon was extinguished. No significant conflict for fifty years, no 'big' war for one hundred years. That might well have happened for a bit longer if Napoleon hadn't tried to be a European dictator.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Pillager
I disagree. Look at what happened in Europe after the threat of Napoleon was extinguished. No significant conflict for fifty years, no 'big' war for one hundred years. That might well have happened for a bit longer if Napoleon hadn't tried to be a European dictator.

I fail to see your logic.

You appear to be attempting to impose a sort of 'Napoleon is removed so France is automatically defeated easily' train of thought, which is slightly foolish, unless you're going to provide some evidence to support it.

Also, can we say for certain that Napoleon's removal from history would have lead to less European conflict - if anything, I'd wager the effects of removing the need for Diplomatic solidarity between the European powers, and the devestating effects that the continent-wide conflict had on European powers and the mindset of their rulers would have lead to more conlict.

Not to mention things like The Poland-Lithuania situation, which may have caused some sort of Prussian-Russian-Austrian war had not Napoleon come along.

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by Hamlet


I fail to see your logic.

You appear to be attempting to impose a sort of 'Napoleon is removed so France is automatically defeated easily' train of thought, which is slightly foolish, unless you're going to provide some evidence to support it.

Also, can we say for certain that Napoleon's removal from history would have lead to less European conflict - if anything, I'd wager the effects of removing the need for Diplomatic solidarity between the European powers, and the devestating effects that the continent-wide conflict had on European powers and the mindset of their rulers would have lead to more conlict.

Not to mention things like The Poland-Lithuania situation, which may have caused some sort of Prussian-Russian-Austrian war had not Napoleon come along.

As Germany would have been easier to defeat/contain without Hitler, so France would have been easier to defeat/contain without Napoleon, if, indeed, it would have got that far. I should have thought that pretty obvious.

 

[Sobieski]

Originally posted by Pillager
I'm not suggesting that there would have been no war - obviously there would have been some reaction to 1789.
What I am saying is that without Napoleon, we wouldn't have had one country trying to control the whole of Europe, and the concomitant wars and death. It was Napoleon who almost managed to dominate the whole continent, and it was the Allies who managed to save Europe from a power-mad dictator.

You mean save it from not being under monarchial control. Personally I would say Napoleon was the lesser of two evils compared to the Russian czars, and the dictators of eastern Europe. You should also remember that many people who were orginally subjugated (The Poles and Ukrainians for example) were supporting Napoleon, because they knew they would get more freedom from him, than from Prussia, Austria, and Russia. In fact many of Napoleons top generals were from those subjugated countries, as those people some him as a liberator. Not to mention much of the lower classes of the rest of the countries.

All things went sour and corrupt eventually under Napoleon, it is inaccurate to make it out as him being more "evil" than the monarchies. All that Napoleon as an anti-Christ bullsh*t on TLC makes me sick. He wasn't great, but this hyperbole is what you get with historical revision over time.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Pillager
As Germany would have been easier to defeat/contain without Hitler,

Hitler was a baboon. Germany could have probably won the war without him.

Originally posted by Pillager
so France would have been easier to defeat/contain without Napoleon, if, indeed, it would have got that far. I should have thought that pretty obvious.

What exactly are you basing that on?

'No Napoleon = quicker defeat of France and shorter war' Is a pretty bloody simplistic way of looking at things, to be honest.

 

[EdwardTking]

Originally posted by Pillager
I disagree. Look at what happened in Europe after the threat of Napoleon was extinguished. No significant conflict for fifty years, no 'big' war for one hundred years. That might well have happened for a bit longer if Napoleon hadn't tried to be a European dictator.

The Napoleonic wars substantially weakened
both France and Spain. Although Prussia, Russia
and the US were growing; Austria-Hungary was
stable while Turkey was in comparative decline.

This left Britain as the most powerful of the
Great Powers from 1815 to 1860 and probably
as powerful as any other until about 1910.

Fortunately Britain was mature enough to resist the
temptation to plan to make territorial gains against
the other great powers or their spheres of influence.

There was of course a helpful asymmettry in that
the great sea power had a small army and could
hardly invade Austria etc; while the continental
great powers' armies could not swim the channel.

Britain's policy was to industrialise, trade and
otherwise avoid war by lining up other powers
to isolate any power looking belligerent.
The strategy was the balance of power.
This was actually remarkably successful.

That is why there were no great wars.

[There was of course the Crimean war;
characterised by incompetence throughout
probably due to a lack of practice; but that
was successfully limited to a particular region.]

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Hamlet
Hitler was a baboon. Germany could have probably won the war without him.

That's only considering conventional weapons. Had there have been no Hitler, but only an expansion of conventional forces, Germany still would have lost. An entire army isn't worth a single atomic bomb.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


That's only considering conventional weapons. Had there have been no Hitler, but only an expansion of conventional forces, Germany still would have lost. An entire army isn't worth a single atomic bomb.

You are assuming that someone besides Hitler would have declared war on the US in the first place. Or the Soviets for that matter. If Germany forced the UK to peace and only then invaded Russia, plus condemned the Japanese sneak attack, the US would not have gone to war with Germany in the same time frame. The cold war would have been US-Germany, instead of US-Russia.

Just my opinion, though.

 

[Sobieski]

Originally posted by knowltok2


You are assuming that someone besides Hitler would have declared war on the US in the first place. Or the Soviets for that matter. If Germany forced the UK to peace and only then invaded Russia, plus condemned the Japanese sneak attack, the US would not have gone to war with Germany in the same time frame. The cold war would have been US-Germany, instead of US-Russia.

Just my opinion, though.

I don't think the Germans would have lasted long enough for there to have been a cold war with them and the United States. Germany would have had to have much more support from the poeple under their control to hold together, and when you are trying to wipe out tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people under your control, it wouldn't have held together long enough for Germany to do much. It proved difficult to wipe out the Jews, imagine trying to deal with the Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, and whoever else those nuts had in mind, not to mention the fact that they would have needed those very people to build the empire.

 

[Octavian X]

I would like to turn some attention to the year 1066 A.D. and the Battle of Hastings. A quick history review:
William the Conqueror (or William the B@st@rd as he was known then) invade Saxon-controlled England from Normady. This came to a point where the Saxons controlled very well defended hill in Hastings. William's cavalry made a charge, and the Saxons came out and fought them. This, however, was a feint, and the rest of the Norman army severly battered the Saxons. The Saxons withdrew into the fort. Then, William did the exact same thing. The Saxons were a warrior race who believed in honor, so they came out of a fort which they still could have held to fight the feint, only to end up being utterly defeated.

The importance? Had there been a different result to this battle, I would not be typing in modern english, but a language more closely related to German. The Saxons were a germanic people, and as such spoke Old English, a close variation of the German language at the time. The Norman invasion intoduced early french, which was basically bad latin, and Middle English was formed.

 

[Pliny The Elder]

The one Neanderthal Man lost. (BTW, I was going by m1066ad, then m1297ad, I keep losing passwords when I reformat, and it just seems easier to re-register, for some reason)

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Sobieski


I don't think the Germans would have lasted long enough for there to have been a cold war with them and the United States. Germany would have had to have much more support from the poeple under their control to hold together, and when you are trying to wipe out tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people under your control, it wouldn't have held together long enough for Germany to do much. It proved difficult to wipe out the Jews, imagine trying to deal with the Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, and whoever else those nuts had in mind, not to mention the fact that they would have needed those very people to build the empire.

This certainly can be debated, but my main point is that it wouldn't be automatic that Germany and the US would be at war in 1945 for the US to use a nuclear weapon.

 

[onejayhawk]

By the end of the war the US was outproducing the entire planet. By 1943 the only question was where, when and in what order. Also dont discount the British factor. Throughout the war British intellegence was the wonder of the modern world. They convinced the Germans that the invasion would come a month later and a hundred miles away. They created an army of 200,000 men out of cardboard and Georgy Patton and his dog.

Never forget the subtle factors. It is no coincidence that the Engish language is the most spoken in the world. If a pakistani meets a Burubndi, chances are they will converse in English.

Other comments. Hitler was no baboon. He recognized Rommel's genius when he saw it. Granted he was no staff officer, but it was no coincidence he not only survived the political carnage of the 20's and 30's, but thrived on it. He was also decisive at need. Look at the night of the long knives. Pivotal point in the 20th century. His failure was largely a matter of overreaching and huge numerical deficiencies. See also Robert E Lee. The fact that he was a monster is irrelivant to his skills as a politician. In that area he was a real Bill Clinton.

Geramny could never win the War, but they could have forced a favorable peace. In 1939 Churchill said. "God help us if he declares a peace." By this he meant that if Hitler had been willing to take Czechoslovakia and half of Poland and burn the Treaty of Vesailles, he could have done it easily. Consider the map today if Russia had been the one to break the treaty and attack Geramny. The US would never have sent huge numbers of ships to Russia-- the contents were almost irrelivant. The steel in the ships themselves was the point--and Hitler could have safely turned his back on England to deal with his real enemy. Probably with better results. That is where a real Cold War could have developed.

 

[magic-monkey]

Had there have been no Hitler, but only an expansion of conventional forces, Germany still would have lost.

Wasn't Hitler responsible for Germany's failure to develop the bomb? When Hitler came to power Germany was probably the most scientifically advanced nation in the world, however the coming of his rule saw the greatest minds of the time fleeing for Britain/the US etc. Plus, during the war itself, the project wasn't given high priority.

Hitler was a dreadful leader in most respects.

You should also remember that many people who were orginally subjugated (The Poles and Ukrainians for example) were supporting Napoleon.

This doesn't prove anything, the Ukrainians welcomed the Nazi's as liberators in WWII, it doesn't make Hitler more liberal than Stalin.

Interesting to think what would have happened if the 1066 invasion hadn't proved succesful. no english language as we know it... no shakespeare?

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by onejayhawk
Other comments. Hitler was no baboon.

I meant he was utterly militarily inept and idiotic, which he was, rather than he was a fool in the complete personality sense.

Hitler was a very good politician. However, his abilities extended into very few other areas.

Originally posted by onejayhawk
Geramny could never win the War

I disagree entirely. The USSR nearly collapsed, The USSR was shaken to it's utter foundations, and The UK was completely devastated through bombing, the financial drain and the long-running war.

With somewhat better organisation, strategy, and leadership, Germany would have won very easily indeed.

It was a very close run thing. Imagine what would have happened if German forces had made it to Moscow. You would have most probably have had Stalin suing for peace, and the course of the entire war would have been changed. They were, I believe, under 20 miles away from Moscow at one point.

Even if Hitler hadn't made so many mistakes, such as relying on intuition and supersition in the later stages of the war, Germany still could have won.

 

[Sobieski]

Originally posted by magic-monkey

Wasn't Hitler responsible for Germany's failure to develop the bomb? When Hitler came to power Germany was probably the most scientifically advanced nation in the world, however the coming of his rule saw the greatest minds of the time fleeing for Britain/the US etc. Plus, during the war itself, the project wasn't given high priority.

Just on sort of a side note, my grandpa was telling my dad a story, about when he was in university (pre-WWII, but not to far before), an American university sent the Germans a tiny drill bit, to show the Germans how small the Americans were capable of making their machinery, and then the Germans sent the tiny drill bit back to the American university with a hole drilled in it.

 

[Sobieski]

Originally posted by magic-monkey

This doesn't prove anything, the Ukrainians welcomed the Nazi's as liberators in WWII, it doesn't make Hitler more liberal than Stalin.

No, but I would say that the French revolutionaries were more liberal than the conservative monarchies of eastern Europe.

Not to mention that Napoleon didn't later try to wipe those people out the way the Germans did. It is not a good comparison.

 

[RNolan]

Mohammed's war against Mecca (622 AD - 629 AD)

I'm suprised this isn't mentioned before. There are a lot of what if's about Islam - but they all seem to suppose it being more succesful. Surely though it is just as posible that it could have been less so.

If Mohammed had lost his war against Mecca then it would profoundly changed the course of history. Firstly no destruction of the Mediterranean civilisation - in 629 it was possible for a Byzantine subject to move from Spain to Egypt or Syria without straying into barbarian territories. So the Dark Ages in the South of Europe would have been averted entirely and who can guess what effect this would have on the north? For that matter would Persia and Byzantium have continued indefinetly and end up like say China? Or at least last far longer? What about Spain?

I think this - or any other early battle in the history of Islam is very important. What if Persia had defeated the Arab armies but the Byzantines had not?

Yours

Ross

 

[magic-monkey]

My point was that you cannot simply take the fact that certain oppressed groups supported Napoleon as evidence for him being more liberal. However, I'm being somewhat pedantic in arguing this as, despite being a dictatorship and a police state, i'd agree that the individual did have greater rights in Napoleonic France. So, sorry