Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 EmilCrane wrote:
My dissertation is only early modern naval history, so I can highlight a few key events.

Battle of Tushima- The only time one battleship fleet decisively defeated another. Proved the effectiveness of long range gunnery and torpedoes and secured Japan as a Great Power. Led to the development of Dreadnoughts.

The World Wars had several important battles as well, Jutland, and Midway were probably the most important.

Other one to mention is Operation Praying Mantis, a US-Iranian Navy battle in the Persian Gulf. Its important because its the only major fleet action since WW2 and gives us an idea what a major modern fleet action would look like.

I also find Jutland and Tsushima Straits very interesting.

You may also be interested in the battle of the Yalu River where Chinese Battleships have to fend off attacking Japanese Cruisers. This battle occurred prior to Tsushima, as par tof the Sino-Japanese war. Naval warfare doesn't have nearly as much "stuff" written about it as land war.

WWI Aviation is also interesting to me, but that is apparently not history.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
and who actually decided the outcome of the battle.

But then saying that ignores the effort that the allied forces on the field put in to hold on through the waves of French assault. It wasn't a British victory, or a Prussian victory, or a Dutch-Belgian victory, it was an allied victory.

Saying that the Prussian arrival decided the outcome does not mean "They won Waterloo singlehandedly, and everyone else was just there to watch"*, and I in no way wish to come across as saying that either, but without them the chances of the battle being lost were actually quite high, which is why Napoleon had done his best to split the two armies up.

*The problem is so many tellings of Waterloo have literally been that fantasy of "one nationality did it all", though. Except replace "Prussians" with "British".

There were something like 7 official nations in that army weren't there?
Probably several dozen if you were to look at the rank and file troops.

The Allies were made up of Britain, Prussian, Dutch, Hannover, Brunswick and Nassau, and probably a great deal more nationalities were represented on a smaller scale .

I think what angers me most is not how in a lot of recounts of the events British soldiers are bigged up massively, but how the authors feel the need to really denigrate the other nations. Frankly I learned that all dutch people are cowards who run at the first sight of the enemy, to be roundly mocked by their non-plussed, stoic redcoated allies.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Saying that the Prussian arrival decided the outcome does not mean "They won Waterloo singlehandedly, and everyone else was just there to watch"*, and I in no way wish to come across as saying that either, but without them the chances of the battle being lost were actually quite high, which is why Napoleon had done his best to split the two armies up.

*The problem is so many tellings of Waterloo have literally been that fantasy of "one nationality did it all", though. Except replace "Prussians" with "British".

I think I was agreeing with that point at least I was trying to. It was an allied victory as I said, not any one nation in particular.

It's a subject that annoys me, as you might guess.



Almost as much as the hero worship of that useless, cretinous little bugger Paul Revere.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
The Allies were made up of Britain, Prussian, Dutch, Hannover, Brunswick and Nassau, and probably a great deal more nationalities were represented on a smaller scale .

I think what angers me most is not how in a lot of recounts of the events British soldiers are bigged up massively, but how the authors feel the need to really denigrate the other nations. Frankly I learned that all dutch people are cowards who run at the first sight of the enemy, to be roundly mocked by their non-plussed, stoic redcoated allies.

That was a weird thing...
It's like all the people who wrote the accounts hated the Dutch or something...

Really who doesn't hate the dutch?

There are two things I can't stand, people who are intolerant of other people's culturre; and the Dutch.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Saying that the Prussian arrival decided the outcome does not mean "They won Waterloo singlehandedly, and everyone else was just there to watch"*, and I in no way wish to come across as saying that either, but without them the chances of the battle being lost were actually quite high, which is why Napoleon had done his best to split the two armies up.

*The problem is so many tellings of Waterloo have literally been that fantasy of "one nationality did it all", though. Except replace "Prussians" with "British".

You have to place things in perspective.

The Dutch 'tactically withdrew' early in the battle, Wellington expected this and placed the Prince of Oranges troops where a rout would not be catastrophic. When those troops fled to Brussels they announced a French victory which set the city into a panic.

A lot of the Anglo-Allied army were not British and did pull their weight spectacularly, Brunswickers and Hannoverians or instance. However while the battle ended because Blucher kept his promise to stand and fight to Wellington and retreated South rather than East after Ligny and Blucher certainly saved Wellington from defeat.
However...

Wellingtons army held against superior numbers, playing for time and were down to the last of their ammo before relief arrived. Its interesting to note that military wargame simulations (that is by military as training not hobbyists) usually result in a crushing French victory. IIRC 70% of the time according to US military simulations.

Wellington and the Anglo-Allied army are rightly credited with defeating Napoleon, even if they did not make the finishing move and they had help from allies who held the line with them.

Ok... first off, feth the rules of the 20th century... I get you were trying to keep people away from the stereotypical, "i luvz WW2" comments...

1. WW1... "the war to end all wars", yet it's created basically every conflict past it in the 20th/21st Century. The manner in which it started out of seemingly nothing, ended just as oddly, and left various countries in a state where the only eventual option was another war. Also, we are reaching the tail end of the industrial revolutions. The combatant countries have stockpiles of weapons that they have designed and tested, but are honestly unsure how effective they will be, only to find out that they are pretty fething spectacular and necessitate revolutions in warfare. It is, to me, simply the most interesting piece of world history to study, especially when one considers the domino effects that it had.

2. the Industrial Revolution. I am particularly interested in the Robber Barons of the late 19th century in the US, as well as some of hte follow on effects of it... the working day and work week. How society condoned and even sort of created the "entertainment class" (ie, making Professional Sports a legitimate business, and legitimate profession)

3. The social oddities... While not bound to a particular period of history, I am deeply intrigued by the history of Stage Magicians/magic, the Burlesque Theaters, the history of the traveling circus/carnival show and that sort of thing... the odder it is, and the longer its gone on, the more i'm interested.

It would also be nice if everyone took an interest in the word 'decimated'. This word is as much misused as the word Viking.

The word comes from the Latin for 10 - Decem.

The Romans would periodically punish legions of troops by decimation, selecting 1 man in 10 and executing them, or doing some other nasty unpleasant thing to them.

The modern word decimation is used when you need to remove 1/10 of something. You need to decimate that order, so part of it can be sent to California, that kind of thing.

So, you decimated your opponent last night? you didn't kill many of them then!

The modern usage of decimation is "to destroy a large part of something." The roman army also didn't just select 1 man out of 10 and killed him, they took the entire large group of offenders, split them into groups of ten. Then those groups would draw lots, the man with the bad luck was killed by the other 9 in his group. No man knew going into it if he would come out alive, and no man knew if they might have to kill a comrade/brother in arms. The punishment was so severe because to took away all levels of blame from the offending units, if you, me, and 8 other Dakkanauts failed to take a hill from Warseer and we were given the punishment of decimation, it didn't matter if you did all you could, slaughtered countless men and claimed what should have been tons of glory if we failed to take the hill you were just as much to blame for the failure as the person sitting in the back not doing anything.

It was also a way to enact punishment on large numbers of people without crippling their efforts.

Whilst true, nowadays the word has changed/had added meaning to it.

Like how "gay" changed.

Orlanth, exactly that, the Allies as a whole prevailed.

According to the Oxford English dictionary, the word decimate hasn't changed in it's meaning, it still means 'to remove 1/10'
The word Gay has however been changed in the Oxford English dictionary


That roman punishment is still only killing 1 person is it not? it is as I describe killing 1 person in 10 people, hence the Decem - 10

if the word decimation had change then logically the word Decem should change.

It's like saying there's 10 guys over there, when actually there are 30.

This is my last post on the subject, because it's causing the thread to go off topic.

 necrovamp wrote:
According to the Oxford English dictionary, the word decimate hasn't changed in it's meaning, it still means 'to remove 1/10'
The word Gay has however been changed in the Oxford English dictionary


That roman punishment is still only killing 1 person is it not? it is as I describe killing 1 person in 10 people, hence the Decem - 10

if the word decimation had change then logically the word Decem should change.

It's like saying there's 10 guys over there, when actually there are 30.

This is my last post on the subject, because it's causing the thread to go off topic.

It's still talking about history, it's just word history instead of military history, but word history about a military word!

And yes, technically within the Roman Army it meant killing 1 in 10. The reason why it was effective was because the 9 other lucky SoBs were also being punished because they had to kill the guy who was drawn to die. You're leaving out that important context that made it a very effective military punishment during the time period. You're not just punishing 1 in 10 by selecting someone to go off and face a firing squad. You're punishing all 10 of them. Let's put it this way, if you and I were in that military unit and we were 2 of the lucky 9 'survivors', do you think we'd failed in our mission/tasks again? Idk about you, but I'd not like to test my luck again.

Also the OED should show the evolution of the word as that is what it tracks. Most dictionaries simply tell of the current and modern usage, but the OED tracks a word's evolution. If it doesn't have decimate with the current usage in addition to when it was first used, then the OED isn't doing it's job.

verb
[with object]
1kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of:
the inhabitants of the country had been decimated
drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something):
public transport has been decimated
2 historical kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group:
the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers

Either it always meant both, or they changed it to add in 1. This is from the online Oxford dictionaries.

The Dictionary tends to lag behind what a word is being used for currently. Decimate will probably have an additional meaning added eventually, which will basically be "to destroy or harm a large portion of something".

It already has had that added, Grey.

I actually just got up, went to another room and found a 1988 paperback Oxford dictionary which has that in it. It amusingly also states "many people object to this meaning", but it's nothing new when it's been there for at least 20 years.

Bleh, didn't see your post above. Its still too early for me.

I was always very interest in world war 2 - mainly because my family was involved, its pretty cool that I got both perspectives because of my Canadian and Hungarian sides.

I'm most interested in the pacific theater and the eastern front. I've also been working on a 1/350 scale IJN Yamato (to be completed in the next month or so hopefully!). After that I've got a 1/350 IJN Nagato and 1/350 HMCS Haida (have to represent Canada some how ) lined up

I love La Tene Celtic culture, and in general Celtic cultures and civilizations until the Christianisation period. I really like reading about the invasion of Greece by Brennus and just how audacious they were.

 ThePrimordial wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Pre Columbian Central and South American history, especially the ancient Maya.

Initial culture / fixed settlements in northern Yucatan is now set at 2,500BC. Interesting things include evidence of a strong middle class, and 3 football field wide raised plaza akin to the bottom half of one ofthe great pyramids of Egypt.

I'm sorry, you didn't list the Battle of the Alamo.

Please turn in your Texas Flag and present for mandatory relocation to Oklahoma.

Thats not a battle. Thats a religious experience for all Texans. I have made the Hajj to the Mission De Bejar six times infidel.

I want to sig this so bad. Can I?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadowbrand wrote:
1066. That era of time is easily my favorite to follow and learn about. Next to say the days of the Roman Empire and the Wild West.

Plus the tale of Stamford bridge really rocks my socks.

Already called it. In the end the Norse hero gets killed by a cheapshot to his boys after killing 40+ Englishmen over a half hour period.

Of course!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
My dissertation is only early modern naval history, so I can highlight a few key events.

Battle of Tushima- The only time one battleship fleet decisively defeated another. Proved the effectiveness of long range gunnery and torpedoes and secured Japan as a Great Power. Led to the development of Dreadnoughts.

The World Wars had several important battles as well, Jutland, and Midway were probably the most important.

Other one to mention is Operation Praying Mantis, a US-Iranian Navy battle in the Persian Gulf. Its important because its the only major fleet action since WW2 and gives us an idea what a major modern fleet action would look like.

I also find Jutland and Tsushima Straits very interesting.

You may also be interested in the battle of the Yalu River where Chinese Battleships have to fend off attacking Japanese Cruisers. This battle occurred prior to Tsushima, as par tof the Sino-Japanese war. Naval warfare doesn't have nearly as much "stuff" written about it as land war.

WWI Aviation is also interesting to me, but that is apparently not history.

Don't forget Leyte Gulf and the Mariannas Turkey Shoot

Right now it's the Battle of Gettysburg, more specifically the 1st Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiment and their actions at Cemetery Ridge. When General Hancock ordered them to charge a Confederate force that outmanned them by at least 5:1 in order to buy the Union time to bring up reinforcements, they fully and instantly executed the order. During the fight they suffered the highest percentage of casualties ever taken by a US military unit in a single day (83%) yet they held their ground and kept the Confederates from pushing Union forces off Cemetery Ridge. The 47 survivors of the charge only retreated once reinforcements had arrived.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
What is your most favorite historical battle or event That is not in the 20th, or 21st century.

I. The writing of Hammurabi's Code, because it is one of the first instances of legal activity, and, everything considered, pretty cool. Also, because the words 'Lex Talionis' just sounds so fething cool.

Hammurabi: I beg to report to you,

He was awesome enough to have someone write a computer game about him in the 80's:
http://www.hammurabigame.com/hammurabi-game.php

WarOne wrote:I would say the invention of the automobile would be a significant event.

It's hard to track down any reliable sources, but my current favourite historical anecdote (I don't do periods, only random facts from various points in time ):
In 1895, there were approximately 2 automobiles in the state of Ohio, they were both destroyed in a head-on collision with each other...

Fething Ohio drivers

 Coolyo294 wrote:
Right now it's the Battle of Gettysburg, more specifically the 1st Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiment and their actions at Cemetery Ridge. When General Hancock ordered them to charge a Confederate force that outmanned them by at least 5:1 in order to buy the Union time to bring up reinforcements, they fully and instantly executed the order. During the fight they suffered the highest percentage of casualties ever taken by a US military unit in a single day (83%) yet they held their ground and kept the Confederates from pushing Union forces off Cemetery Ridge. The 47 survivors of the charge only retreated once reinforcements had arrived.

Yeah, the 1st MN were pretty cool. That wasn't the only battle they fought in, but it obvsiouly their "biggest" moment.

I am going to skip the no WW2 rule, because I just finished something vaguely relevant :



[img][https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1052501_10151996162030815_607464158_o.jpg/img]

Rommel seems like an ROW guy to me.

 EmilCrane wrote:

Battle of Hampton Roads- The first confrontation between iron hulled warships. Overnight the world's navies were rendered obsolete, and the world began an arms race that led to WW1..

Battle of Tushima- The only time one battleship fleet decisively defeated another. Proved the effectiveness of long range gunnery and torpedoes and secured Japan as a Great Power. Led to the development of Dreadnoughts.

I picked out three things in these two lines that make me wince through inaccuracy.