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.

hello dakka my question for you is what in your opinion is the most interesting single war out battle in history. In other wars what is the one that you like the most.

I well start, for a war probable the Gothic war, the roman tactics with horse archers and the constant fighting up and down the Italian peninsula is really cool along with the leaders on either side as well. Here is a wiki page about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_%28535%E2%80%93554%29

For a battle probably the battle of Crecy, not only is it apart of the hundred years war but is also has the most interesting king of England Edward the third. Anyway tell me what is your favorite battle our war.

The most engaging is WW2, but it's been done to death.

The one war I'd like to see explored more is King Phillips War. It was a brutal guerrilla conflict fought where I live. Per capita it was the bloodiest war fought on America soil, yet today it's all but forgotten.

Well the answer to this may change depending on my mood any given day.

Napoleonic wars, just epic battles, variety of units, good for war games.
American civil war always stirs my patriotic heart.
Medieval armies always look so good on the table
WW2...the big one!!!

The most interesting to me are sometimes the wars I'm not really familiar with.
The English civil war, thirty years war and other early gunpowder era battles I would love to familiarize myself with.

I've always found WWI interesting because it was arguably the birth of modern warfare, where the line infantry and cavalry charges of the 19th century met with tanks, artillery bombardments, aerial combat and stormtrooper tactics.
It's a shame all that ever gets focused on is trench warfare on the western front when there was so much more to the war.

As for battles I've always had a soft spot for Kursk, because I'm a big tank fan

WW1 is very interesting because of the complete revolution in the nature of warfare that occurred throughout its duration. Massed formations that almost resembled the Napoleonic wars of a century earlier at the start to mechanised industrial warfare at the end. By 1918 you could see the inception of the tactics that would eventually become Blitzkrieg.

All the more tragic as the sheer speed of technological innovation meant it was difficult for tactics to keep up and the result was often horrendous casualties.

I think my favorite conflict was back in the 80s when the Cubans and Soviets invaded the United States, forcing the population into prison camps and fighting groups of American nationals in prolonged guerrilla warfare.

As per favorite single battle I would say Hue City in Vietnam ranks amongst my favorite, as much as a person can have a "favorite" bloody conflict. I find it really interesting when units are put in dire enough straits that their combat doctrine is forced to adapt to circumstance.

1066 Battle of Hastings.

Big pitched battle that could truely go either way. One decisive battle that changed the history of the world.
The last English King, England would ever have vs a Norman French Duke.

 Strombones wrote:
I think my favorite conflict was back in the 80s when the Cubans and Soviets invaded the United States, forcing the population into prison camps and fighting groups of American nationals in prolonged guerrilla warfare.

I remember that one. Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen led the resistance right?

Vietnam had the best soundtrack of any war, hands down, I don't know if that classifies it as most interesting or not though...

For actual wars, I would probably say American Civil War or World War 1, otherwise I would say the Cold War. World War 2 has been done to death and I've researched it and read about it so much at this point that its hard to find anything about it new, interesting, or exciting.

My favorite singe ‘action’ was 2para at Arnhem bridge. Holding off 9th SS for 4 days and only succumbing when the ammunition ran out. The battle was a tragedy in many ways as appalling planning and lack of intelligence ensured it could never succeed, yet the bravery and daring is still awe inspiring.

I’m also reading up allot on the battle of LZ X-Ray in the IA Drang valley in the Vietnam war and thats also becoming a favorite. I guess I must have a thing for cut off units holding out against overwhelming odds.

Oh and as chaos0xomega says Vietnam had a great soundtrack. It was Vietnam movies that got me into The Doors and Credence Clearwater Revival.

 LuciusAR wrote:
My favorite singe ‘action’ was 2para at Arnhem bridge. Holding off 9th SS for 4 days and only succumbing when the ammunition ran out. The battle was a tragedy in many ways as appalling planning and lack of intelligence ensured it could never succeedl.

Good to see the old myths still hold sway.

The operation was well planned, if you only consider tge art of operational planning and preparation, indeed it was rather amazing done in less than two weeks, although based on a previous plan called Comet, in turn based on another. The problem was the plan, had serious operational flaws. Allocation of gliders, loss of key command elements at crucial periods, broad tacgical advance, all far more serious than planning issues.

There was also plenty of military intelligence gathered, considered and in part discounted due to the fact ghe Dutch resistance was well known to be throughly penetrated by the SD and the Gestapo, having led to the cature and deaths of scores of SOE agents, so the unwillingness to rely on Dutch intel as a trusted source is understandable. The problem was not feeding the intel down to battalion commanders who could have adjusted load allocations, such as Frost who stated had he known of the chance of enemy armour, he would have reduce mortar allocation and increased PIATs.

Its easy to criticise with hindsight, not so easy at the time.

After 30 years reading and researching WW2, I find new and exciting things all the time...

Big P wrote:


After 30 years reading and researching WW2, I find new and exciting things all the time...

Good for you, I find little truly new information pertinent to the overall course of the war or even most battles. While the occasional biography or first hand account might be an interesting read, they rarely have anything really worth mentioning or remembering (unless you're into knowing about private so-and-sos various dalliances with women in liberated Paris), likewise it seems most of the 'new historical research' is either restating the obvious (yes, we all know that soviet and american armor production outpaced the Germans, so what if they actually produced 300 more armored vehicles than we previously estimated) or challenging/debating established beliefs/myths (just like your post about 2para at Arnhem Bridge).

The most interesting war is the First World War for a number of reasons. It is the last war that was fought for 18th century diplomatic principles. It is wound up in a knot of myth and reality deeply entrenched in politics. Tactically and technologically it is fascinating.

I have always been partial to the battle of Cannae.

As for the most interesting English king no one comes close to William IV.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Big P wrote:


After 30 years reading and researching WW2, I find new and exciting things all the time...

Good for you, I find little truly new information pertinent to the overall course of the war or even most battles. While the occasional biography or first hand account might be an interesting read, they rarely have anything really worth mentioning or remembering (unless you're into knowing about private so-and-sos various dalliances with women in liberated Paris), likewise it seems most of the 'new historical research' is either restating the obvious (yes, we all know that soviet and american armor production outpaced the Germans, so what if they actually produced 300 more armored vehicles than we previously estimated) or challenging/debating established beliefs/myths (just like your post about 2para at Arnhem Bridge).

What a depressing out look but thankfully only applicable to your own perception.

I can think of two books I bought this month that give new views to two battles, the Viazma counter attack and the Comines Canal defence, both of which bring new information into the field.

The month before I picked up one on arnhem that for the first time showed the full key role played by Kraft on the day.

Surely though, you not finding anything 'new' is directly linked to your personal interests and what you choose to read.

I'm amazed anyone can state such bold black and white comments and expect them to apply to anyones but their own perception. Of course my perception is coloured by writing and teaching WW2 history, so one mans interesting fact, is anothers boredom.


Apart from WW2, my other interests are Colonial India, SYW and ACW.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Big P wrote:


After 30 years reading and researching WW2, I find new and exciting things all the time...

Good for you, I find little truly new information pertinent to the overall course of the war or even most battles. While the occasional biography or first hand account might be an interesting read, they rarely have anything really worth mentioning or remembering (unless you're into knowing about private so-and-sos various dalliances with women in liberated Paris), likewise it seems most of the 'new historical research' is either restating the obvious (yes, we all know that soviet and american armor production outpaced the Germans, so what if they actually produced 300 more armored vehicles than we previously estimated) or challenging/debating established beliefs/myths (just like your post about 2para at Arnhem Bridge).

That's odd, because many of the files of all combatants are still classified, and as they become unclassified new light in thrown on events. The Eastern theatre in particular is rather opaque.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Big P wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
My favorite singe ‘action’ was 2para at Arnhem bridge. Holding off 9th SS for 4 days and only succumbing when the ammunition ran out. The battle was a tragedy in many ways as appalling planning and lack of intelligence ensured it could never succeedl.

Good to see the old myths still hold sway.

The operation was well planned, if you only consider tge art of operational planning and preparation, indeed it was rather amazing done in less than two weeks, although based on a previous plan called Comet, in turn based on another. The problem was the plan, had serious operational flaws. Allocation of gliders, loss of key command elements at crucial periods, broad tacgical advance, all far more serious than planning issues.

There was also plenty of military intelligence gathered, considered and in part discounted due to the fact ghe Dutch resistance was well known to be throughly penetrated by the SD and the Gestapo, having led to the cature and deaths of scores of SOE agents, so the unwillingness to rely on Dutch intel as a trusted source is understandable. The problem was not feeding the intel down to battalion commanders who could have adjusted load allocations, such as Frost who stated had he known of the chance of enemy armour, he would have reduce mortar allocation and increased PIATs.

Its easy to criticise with hindsight, not so easy at the time.

After 30 years reading and researching WW2, I find new and exciting things all the time...

Arnhem is a curious campaign.

If one follows the standard narrative of the heroic, well oiled German military machine grinding down the Allies in Normandy - using their superior leadership, weapons, and tactics to fight the Allies to a stand still.... etc... it's odd to think that 3 1/2 months after the landings of D Day, allied troops were fighting to secure a bridge into Germany proper.

Indeed, hence the importance of books like Demolishing the Myth and the Viazma Catastrophe from Russian authors, with access to Soviet veterans and records never seen in the West. Both, especially the later, paint a new picture of war on the Eastern Front, especially from the point of view of the Red Army in 1941in the latters case.

Not what I would call boring, but each to their own.

As I understand it, most documents are declassified after 50/75/100 years, so that being said, the first set of documents were dumped out around the time I was born, thus I grew up with the "post 50 year" knowledge of the war. The next set of documents should start releasing this year, so we'll see if anything truly exciting really new, interesting, or exciting really comes from it. Otherwise, I (again) don't personally find much of interest in microscopic dissection of battles.

Without a doubt, WWI..... Fighting in the SKY... REALLY.
Modern tech of the time yet fought much like Knights of old.
No place to go but down, and other then the sun at your back... no where to hide.
Don't get me wrong, I like many different time periods, Ancients, American Revolution, English Civil War, American Civil war, Napoleonic time, my second pick BTW.
Gotta go with WWI aviation though.
BTW, interesting comments by All.
Regards,

 LuciusAR wrote:

 Strombones wrote:
I think my favorite conflict was back in the 80s when the Cubans and Soviets invaded the United States, forcing the population into prison camps and fighting groups of American nationals in prolonged guerrilla warfare.

I remember that one. Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen led the resistance right?

Indeed. Coincidently they both went on to very successful acting careers after the war.

With all the buzz of a possible Flames of War WW1 line on the horizon I'm looking forward to exploring the subject more. It is a shame that most of my military enthusiasm has largely missed most conflicts prior to WW2. My knowledge on the first world war is embarrassingly black and white and I'm excited to uncover some new insight. That being said, I've read exstensively into Vietnam and WW2 all my life and never seem to have a problem finding something new and exciting. Hell I still come across information that causes me to question the established consensus from time to time.

Think I might get to some WW1 reading now!

Geez, I make a comment that I'm so tired of hearing/reading/learning about WW2 and don't find it interesting anymore and its like everyone wants to crucify me for it. THERE ARE OTHER WARS DAMNIT!

It's true. World War 2 does get a ton of attention. Especially in the gaming world.

Sadly, I've never been able to maintain a purely anthropological attitude regarding the first world war, and don't think I would enjoy a wargame of it as a consequence. As Marielle has said above it is certainly fascinating in terms of the transition it represents in history (and really, the making of the modern world we know now), but I've read too many books about it, spent some time reading the war poets (also, watched 'Galipoli', and any number of other films, too many times!), to be able to consider it in a detached manner.

Perhaps the very things that made it interesting from a historical perspective, I think probably produced one of humanity's best (although certainly not our only) attempts to create a hell on earth. And, I wonder if this is why it seems to be relatively less popular as a subject of wargaming.

Although, I realise this is very much a subjective thing! I know very keen wargamers who won't touch historical games, period, because of the connotations of pushing miniatures around on a tabletop, and what it represents.

At the moment I've been reading a fair bit about the Hundred Years war and Agincourt, which I find extremely interesting. Also reading a book about Edward 1st ('Longshanks'), called A Great and Terrible King, by someone called Mark Morris. Has the advantage of being a tremendously written book, which isn't all that common in history literature. Very evocative, has definitely made me think about some rulesets suitable for the early medievil period!

Peronally I find the Norman Conquests and the Crusades to be the most interesting.

From being a bunch of norse bandits that effectively strong armed their way into the Northern French coast they conquered England, Southern Italy, Wales, and the Holy Land. Which is fairly impressive in that day in age.

The Crusades, in particular, are still being played out today in some form or fashion. As a "war", religious, and political movement that started finding its roots during the attempted Muslim conquest of Europe in the 700s, it sure has lasted a long time in terms of shockwaves.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whitehorn wrote:
1066 Battle of Hastings.

Big pitched battle that could truely go either way. One decisive battle that changed the history of the world.
The last English King, England would ever have vs a Norman French Duke.

Funny to call Harold the last English King, as the Saxons were usurpers and conquerors in their own right. People tend to forget the Saxons were far worse in their conquests than the Normans were.

The Crusades were my first Ancients army. The imagery of the period is incredible - cavalry charges, striking Knights Orders uniforms, colorful Saracen outfits, massive castles .... All a very romantic sight. Too bad the actual history is dark, tragic, and wasteful.

Republic Rome is my second love - the vast web of adversaries in the 3rd century BC makes for fertile material for gaming: Romans, Etruscans, Celts, Carthaginians, Greek states, Italian Tribes, and the remnants of the Successor nations.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

Funny to call Harold the last English King, as the Saxons were usurpers and conquerors in their own right. People tend to forget the Saxons were far worse in their conquests than the Normans were.

I find your claim about the Saxons odd.

Harold was the last Anglo Saxon king, not the last English king... I realise you were replying to a another comment.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

Funny to call Harold the last English King, as the Saxons were usurpers and conquerors in their own right. People tend to forget the Saxons were far worse in their conquests than the Normans were.

Who would you say were the 'original' owners - before the saxons it was the British/welsh/celts - however these again displaced the indigenous culture as the celts were from the hallstatt culture in Austria. it is an emotionally charged topic to go down that route.

Harold would be the last 'English' King in that respect as the English were the anglo-saxons/jutes

Perhaps Edward III was the first English king. I believe he was the first to issue laws in English as well as French and Latin, for example, and Chaucer was during his reign, who is regarded as the first vernacular English writer.

That's by the by, though.

To return to the original point, WW2 clearly is the most diverse, largest and to a great degree the most changing conflict. It started nearly with biplanes and finished with jets, nuclear weapons, and guided missiles.

However, many wars can lay claim in different ways. The French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars, for a start, and possibly the Battle of Leipzig as the best battle.

Maybe I'm biased because I'm Greek, but the ancient Persian Wars always fascinated me.
The immense Persian Empire invaded the fractured Greek city-states, forcing them to unite against the common foe. The Greeks were vastly outnumbered but not "outgunned". Their weaponry and heavy armor was greatly superior to the light persian troops, and the Greek phalanxes dominated the battlefields.
The last battle of that war, the Battle of Platea is also one of the least celebrated, curiously, even though it is the one that ended the war. It goes to say that superior weaponry and tactics can and usually will triumph over numbers and brute force. Had the war turned out differently, the Persian Empire might have expanded further west, and history today would have been way different.

Apart from that, WW2's Africa theater was especially interesting, as well as the various underground resistance movements in Nazi conquered areas in Europe.

I think the War of 1812 is pretty interesting. Eventually I'd like to try to wargame it. I have a ruleset I want to use, but I don't have any miniatures for it. Hopefully I'll get the chance to dive into a bit more in the next few years.

The North African theater of WWII has also interested me for quite a while, and it's one of my favorite periods to play historical games in.

In my opinion it's the events following the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 in India. Some of the stories that spring up, like rebelling sepoys defending the white families of officers of the British East India Company, are something that does not appear much in western culture, as far as I've seen. Completely different moral and religious motives.
It's incredible to think the same soldier who would follow an officer to certain death in combat would refuse to eat to the point of starving should that same officer's shadow cross his cooking pot.
Different culture causes very interesting stories.