Military History Lovers?

[Clover]

Does anyone here have a passion for Military History? I am going to college for it, after highschool, and I am hoping to find some people to discuss with it in here, I can also help anyone who has any questions on anything to do with it, and I will research the question, not just answer it, I promise you.

[جوري]

we'd a brother here Br, MustaphaMC who had a passion for military history but unfortunately he no longer posts.. I am sure there are others though..

I just like history and art history but don't care much for military stuff, except for two military leaders.. one I love and the other just admire

the first .. Khalid ibn ilwaleed..
and the second is peter the great...

peace

[Clover]

we'd a brother here Br, MustaphaMC who had a passion for military history but unfortunately he no longer posts.. I am sure there are others though..

I just like history and art history but don't care much for military stuff, except for two military leaders.. one I love and the other just admire

the first .. Khalid ibn ilwaleed..
and the second is peter the great...

peace

Well, I have not heard of the first, but I believe the second is mentioned in the bible? That is if he is the right Peter.

I only love 1 Muslim General, Saladin, he was a great man, courageous, and very respectful of his enemies (especially Richard the Lionheart).

[جوري]

peter the great was the Czar of Russia who introduced ideas from western Europe to reform the government; he extended his territories in the Baltic and founded St. Petersburg (1682-1725)

but I think if you read about khalid ibn ilwaleed you might love him even more than salah ad-deen.. he was a true military genius..

let me see if I can find an abridged post about him..

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[جوري]

here we go... Now I'd caution you that wikipedia isn't the most accurate of sources, especially that anyone can simply edit a post with their opinion .. but I think this is perhaps a good intro?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_Walid

[Clover]

here we go... Now I'd caution you that wikipedia isn't the most accurate of sources, especially that anyone can simply edit a post with their opinion .. but I think this is perhaps a good intro?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_Walid

I am sorry about not realizing the Peter you were talking about. I know little of Russian Military, except for the weaponry they used in the 19th-21st Centuries, and of the Romanov Family (Czar Nicholas II, if you have ever heard of Anastasia, it's her father, the one they over-throwed).

So far, that I have read, he does indeed sound great, it scares me that I have never heard of him, really does. I have never seen him on any of the top 10 military commanders of time, but I shall read more on him, and get back to you on my opinoin, and maybe even we shall discuss some of his battles, or campaigns.

[جوري]

I am sorry about not realizing the Peter you were talking about. I know little of Russian Military, except for the weaponry they used in the 19th-21st Centuries, and of the Romanov Family (Czar Nicholas II, if you have ever heard of Anastasia, it's her father, the one they over-throwed).

So far, that I have read, he does indeed sound great, it scares me that I have never heard of him, really does. I have never seen him on any of the top 10 military commanders of time, but I shall read more on him, and get back to you on my opinoin, and maybe even we shall discuss some of his battles, or campaigns.

greetings Clover..

I am not surprised you haven't heard of him, usually they teach very little on Islamic history in schools, unless of course you major in it you wouldn't know of such details.. but I don't think many people appreciate the early history of Islam..

in one battle he was surrounded by roman forces and clearly outnumbered since Islam hadn't spread yet.. so he knew he couldn't defeat the Romans the Muslims were outnumbered and didn't have the resources.. so what he did at night was go into his tent and order his troops to switch position they were like a pentagon pattern so he moved the east to the west, the north to the south and such, as well ordered that all the camels have fire tset to their hooves at night of course the camels and horses were startled so in order to put out the fire they were raging in the desert which caused a sandstorm of sort, so the next day the romans had the illusion that there were new troops arriving, because firstly they weren't fighting the same forces the fought the night previous and secondly because of all the sand they thought new troops were arriving so they retreated and that is how he was able to save Arabia from an impending doom..

so you see sometimes a battle isn't about loss of lives, POWs or casualties it is an intelligent thought.. and he certainly fulfilled what he needed with that battle..

I can see why you would like millitary history.. there is alot of strategy involved...

peace

[Clover]

greetings Clover..

I am not surprised you haven't heard of him, usually they teach very little on Islamic history in schools, unless of course you major in it you wouldn't know of such details.. but I don't think many people appreciate the early history of Islam..

in one battle he was surrounded by roman forces and clearly outnumbered since Islam hadn't spread yet.. so he knew he couldn't defeat the Romans the Muslims were outnumbered and didn't have the resources.. so what he did at night was go into his tent and order his troops to switch position they were like a pentagon pattern so he moved the east to the west, the north to the south and such, as well ordered that all the camels have fire tset to their hooves at night of course the camels and horses were startled so in order to put out the fire they were raging in the desert which caused a sandstorm of sort, so the next day the romans had the illusion that there were new troops arriving, because firstly they weren't fighting the same forces the fought the night previous and secondly because of all the sand they thought new troops were arriving so they retreated and that is how he was able to save Arabia from an impending doom..

so you see sometimes a battle isn't about loss of lives, POWs or casualties it is an intelligent thought.. and he certainly fulfilled what he needed with that battle..

I can see why you would like millitary history.. there is alot of strategy involved...

peace

Haha, I have read of that trick before also. He must have been a great leader, I cannot wait to read a biography on him, and maybe a book on his campaigns. I have heard of that trick they used with ships, making the illusion their was nearly 3x as many ships as their were, its a well known trick, but very risky. It's a gamble, that if you win, your great, if you lose, your not alive to find out if your great or not.

[جوري]

Haha, I have read of that trick before also. He must have been a great leader, I cannot wait to read a biography on him, and maybe a book on his campaigns. I have heard of that trick they used with ships, making the illusion their was nearly 3x as many ships as their were, its a well known trick, but very risky. It's a gamble, that if you win, your great, if you lose, your not alive to find out if your great or not.

I can tell you with confidence that if anyone tried that trick it is because they learned it from him, he really was that ingenues.. He always wanted to die a martyr but on his death bed he said,

'I fought in so many battles seeking martyrdom that there is no place in my body but have a stabbing mark by a spear, a sword or a dagger, and yet here I am, dying on my bed like an old camel dies. May the eyes of the cowards never sleep'

he was never defeated though, I think the only other person who also never lost a battle was Genghis Khan except of course Genghis was bloody evil and did alot of carnage...

Anyhow, Khalid was barred from being a khalif (a governor under islamic jurisprudence) because it was feared that people would take him for more than just a man.. that is really how good he was...


incidentally, I really enjoy Russian history, few characters do stand out, I think the Romanov's were sort of ineffectual as leaders 300 yrs of rule and there was such a disparity between their opulence and the struggle and poverty of the russian people.. also I don't know if you know but most of the kings and queens of Europe were related so it was a wonder that Charles the V I believe of England didn't give him asylum though they were cousins because he was so afraid for his seat.. the story of Anastasia often told in toons is an incorrect one, funny enough I was watching it with my 3 year old niece the other day and she like many others is under the illusion that their assassination is due to Rasputin which isn't the case at all, if anything he was trying to help them with his magical nonsense given their youngest and the only ere to the throne suffered from hemophilia ...


peace

[Joe98]

I have an interest in military history.

Always interested to discuss!

-

[Woodrow]

Many great military strategists were not nice people or followed ideologies I despise. In modern times. I find Rommel to have been one of the greatest Generals, fortunately for us, Hitler misused him and wasted his abilities by placing him in North Africa, if he had headed the Western Front, history would be much different today and many of us would now be speaking German.

[Clover]

I can tell you with confidence that if anyone tried that trick it is because they learned it from him, he really was that ingenues.. He always wanted to die a martyr but on his death bed he said,

'I fought in so many battles seeking martyrdom that there is no place in my body but have a stabbing mark by a spear, a sword or a dagger, and yet here I am, dying on my bed like an old camel dies. May the eyes of the cowards never sleep'

he was never defeated though, I think the only other person who also never lost a battle was Genghis Khan except of course Genghis was bloody evil and did alot of carnage...

Anyhow, Khalid was barred from being a khalif (a governor under islamic jurisprudence) because it was feared that people would take him for more than just a man.. that is really how good he was...


incidentally, I really enjoy Russian history, few characters do stand out, I think the Romanov's were sort of ineffectual as leaders 300 yrs of rule and there was such a disparity between their opulence and the struggle and poverty of the russian people.. also I don't know if you know but most of the kings and queens of Europe were related so it was a wonder that Charles the V I believe of England didn't give him asylum though they were cousins because he was so afraid for his seat.. the story of Anastasia often told in toons is an incorrect one, funny enough I was watching it with my 3 year old niece the other day and she like many others is under the illusion that their assassination is due to Rasputin which isn't the case at all, if anything he was trying to help them with his magical nonsense given their youngest and the only ere to the throne suffered from hemophilia ...


peace

I would never assume that, but I take your word for it.

Well, yes of course, movies are 90% fiction, 10% reality (lol just my own quote). Anastasia, if I remember, was never found, but I think they assumed she was killed or died; of course Rasputin wasn't magical, but we never know, their are mysteries that wil never be explained, part of History ;). The movie Troy, for example, says so many falsehoods about the actual war, its not really funny. They never said, for example, that Achilles and his cousin, Patriclus, were lovers, but their are so many in that movie, its almost impossible to point out half of them, but it is a good movie lol.

Joe, name your favorite war, we shall have a discussion!

[Clover]

Many great military strategists were not nice people or followed ideologies I despise. In modern times. I find Rommel to have been one of the greatest Generals, fortunately for us, Hitler misused him and wasted his abilities by placing him in North Africa, if he had headed the Western Front, history would be much different today and many of us would now be speaking German.

Yes, Rommel was a "tank" genius, but I also must say, Patton was a "tank" genius, although he was rather "funny" in his ways, he believened reincarnation, and believed himself to be the reincarnation of many great military strategists, I believe, if they had allowed him to run a larger army, and maybe control the whole African Campaign, from Day 1, we might have destroyed the Nazis, faster and easier, but who knows. We can only make assumptions now, that they are all gone.

Hitler was a fool, he was a genius, but just like Karma states, he was also a insane man. He attacked Russia, under the illusion, that Stalin was preparing invasion, which of course, Stalin wasn't. If he had waited a year, and not attacked Russia so early, we might be speaking German, but thats my assumption.

[Woodrow]

Yes, Rommel was a "tank" genius, but I also must say, Patton was a "tank" genius, although he was rather "funny" in his ways, he believened reincarnation, and believed himself to be the reincarnation of many great military strategists, I believe, if they had allowed him to run a larger army, and maybe control the whole African Campaign, from Day 1, we might have destroyed the Nazis, faster and easier, but who knows. We can only make assumptions now, that they are all gone.

Hitler was a fool, he was a genius, but just like Karma states, he was also a insane man. He attacked Russia, under the illusion, that Stalin was preparing invasion, which of course, Stalin wasn't. If he had waited a year, and not attacked Russia so early, we might be speaking German, but thats my assumption.

Hitler was a fool and an egotistical maniac. No wonder his Generals made at least one assassination attempt against him. You are quite right about him opening up the Russian front. He had no chance of winning, especially with winter coming and his soldiers not prepared for any long siege of St. Petersburg. Big error.

[Clover]

Hitler was a fool and an egotistical maniac. No wonder his Generals made at least one assassination attempt against him. You are quite right about him opening up the Russian front. He had no chance of winning, especially with winter coming and his soldiers not prepared for any long siege of St. Petersburg. Big error.

Well, in the end, his hatred for the "lesser" races was what killed him. He wanted to destroy Russia, cause he believed it was a cultural threat to the "superior" German blood lines.

[جوري]

I would never assume that, but I take your word for it.

Well, yes of course, movies are 90% fiction, 10% reality (lol just my own quote). Anastasia, if I remember, was never found, but I think they assumed she was killed or died; of course Rasputin wasn't magical, but we never know, their are mysteries that wil never be explained, part of History ;). The movie Troy, for example, says so many falsehoods about the actual war, its not really funny. They never said, for example, that Achilles and his cousin, Patriclus, were lovers, but their are so many in that movie, its almost impossible to point out half of them, but it is a good movie lol.

Joe, name your favorite war, we shall have a discussion!

no they were all gathered in the middle of the night, they thought they were fleeing so they took their Faberge eggs and other treasures with them and they were all assassinated.. just their bodies were found in two separate sites..

http://promega.wordpress.com/2009/03...-play-is-over/


there were just two grave sites, one of the young boy and the young girl and the other of the rest..

[Clover]

no they were all gathered in the middle of the night, they thought they were fleeing so they took their Faberge eggs and other treasures with them and they were all assassinated.. just their bodies were found in two separate sites..

http://promega.wordpress.com/2009/03...-play-is-over/


there were just two grave sites, one of the young boy and the young girl and the other of the rest..

I am sorry for being wrong. I thought they never found her body, thanks for correcting me.

[جوري]

I am sorry for being wrong. I thought they never found her body, thanks for correcting me.

it is a recent find, your original assumption is correct, they only did genetic testing recently .. and it made for really great stories you know people secretly and maybe rightfully so after communist Russia sort of longed for the age of the Romanov's or so I have been told by Russians. I guess because they believed things would improve after the Romanov's but in fact they got worst or were along the same lines...

The Russian people have had a long history of suffering with their leaders.. really many of them were intolerable even he peter the great himself didn't care who died in the construction of his new capital St. Petersburg.. there is also Ivan the terrible, I mean too numerous to count.. I guess I sort of appreciate their suffering.. they have survived for centuries roughing it and that is admirable...

peace

[ardianto]

Why German army never landed in mainland of Great Britain in WW2, and Battle of Britain was air war ?.

I think that was Hitler's fault. After USA entered to the war, England became a base for allied force for launch air bombing over Germany and became a base for launch operation overlord (D-day).

[Clover]

Why German army never landed in mainland of Great Britain in WW2, and Battle of Britain was air war ?.

I think that was Hitler's fault. After USA entered to the war, England became a base for allied force for launch air bombing over Germany and became a base for launch operation overlord (D-day).

um, I guess these are questions to be answered by anyone?

Well, for one the English Channel (or so I hear) is very rough, and it was guarded by the English Navy (or what was left of the English Navy), and any ships spotted, would be attacked by the Royal Airforce, which was a powerful, elite, airforce.

Battle of Britian was a air campaign meant to intimidate the people of England into surrender. Hitler admired England, he said this many times, and he wanted peace with them, so he could focus on Russia, and if he got peace with them, it might help ease relations with America, since America & England were such great buddies at the time.

[Clover]

Also, remember, Hitler used (V2) rockets in the Battle of Britian, it wasn't just planes.

[Joe98]

The V1 and V2 rockets were used in the latter part of the war - not during the battle of Britain.

The V2 rockets should have been targeted at the allied trooops in Normandy - not at London

-

[Clover]

The V1 and V2 rockets were used in the latter part of the war - not during the battle of Britain.

The V2 rockets should have been targeted at the allied trooops in Normandy - not at London

-

You are right, and I am wrong...yet again. This constant barrage of wrongness is driving me insane.

"Almost 9,250 V1's were fired against London, but less than 2,500 reached their target. In flight they were almost as vulnerable as their ramps: about 2,000 were destroyed by anti-aircraft gunfire; 2,000 by fighter planes, and almost 300 by barrage balloons."- Source: http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-her...round/v1v2.htm

I am sorry for being wrong, I thank Joe for saving me from giving a man false.

Joe, we never did discuss a war, please name one, make it one thats not very popular, so we can discuss something new. If you'd like I could reccommend one, but only with your consent.

[ahsan28]

Hitler was a fool, he was a genius, but just like Karma states, he was also a insane man. He attacked Russia, under the illusion, that Stalin was preparing invasion, which of course, Stalin wasn't. If he had waited a year, and not attacked Russia so early, we might be speaking German, but thats my assumption.

True. If you like Rommel, please read North African compaign, especially battles of Gazala and Tobruk.

[Woodrow]

To name some little know wars and some awesome "Generals" I would like to throw in some of the Native Americans:

Sitting Bull (Real name Tatanka Iyotake ) (Hunkpapa Lakota Sioux)

Geronimo ( Chirachua Apache)

Crazy Horse (Real name Tashunca-uitco ) (Oglala/Lakota Sioux)

Those 3 were great planners and strategists.

For those with wisdom and compassion I nominate:

Prince Joseph (Nez Perce)

Being active among the Sioux I am very much interested in the Sioux leaders of the past. I spend a lot of time on and near Pine Ridge and often pass by some of the great battle sites and hear stories of the famous Chiefs.

[Clover]

To name some little know wars and some awesome "Generals" I would like to throw in some of the Native Americans:

Sitting Bull (Real name Tatanka Iyotake ) (Hunkpapa Lakota Sioux)

Geronimo ( Chirachua Apache)

Crazy Horse (Real name Tashunca-uitco ) (Oglala/Lakota Sioux)

Those 3 were great planners and strategists.

For those with wisdom and compassion I nominate:

Prince Joseph (Nez Perce)

Being active among the Sioux I am very much interested in the Sioux leaders of the past. I spend a lot of time on and near Pine Ridge and often pass by some of the great battle sites and hear stories of the famous Chiefs.

I read a book called Panther in the Sky, you should read it, its a great read about Tecumseh, and his family's impact on their tribe, and others.

[ardianto]

um, I guess these are questions to be answered by anyone?

Well, for one the English Channel (or so I hear) is very rough, and it was guarded by the English Navy (or what was left of the English Navy), and any ships spotted, would be attacked by the Royal Airforce, which was a powerful, elite, airforce.

Battle of Britian was a air campaign meant to intimidate the people of England into surrender. Hitler admired England, he said this many times, and he wanted peace with them, so he could focus on Russia, and if he got peace with them, it might help ease relations with America, since America & England were such great buddies at the time.

Yes, these were questions for anyone.
I have an assumption, altough Germany was very strengh on ground and in underwater (they had many U-boat), they had no enough landing ship / landing craft for attack England.
And, thank for your explaination about Battle of Britain. I never knew Hitler wanted peace with England.

[Muezzin]

Many great military strategists were not nice people or followed ideologies I despise. In modern times. I find Rommel to have been one of the greatest Generals, fortunately for us, Hitler misused him and wasted his abilities by placing him in North Africa, if he had headed the Western Front, history would be much different today and many of us would now be speaking German.

What do you think of Sun Tzu?

[Woodrow]

What do you think of Sun Tzu?

Sadly I am not all that familiar with him. I have been putting off reading his writing Sūn Zǐ Bīng Fǎ (The Art of War).

Many military leaders, such as MacArthur used it as a guide for their strategies.

[~Raynn~]

To name some little know wars and some awesome "Generals" I would like to throw in some of the Native Americans:

Sitting Bull (Real name Tatanka Iyotake ) (Hunkpapa Lakota Sioux)

Geronimo ( Chirachua Apache)

Crazy Horse (Real name Tashunca-uitco ) (Oglala/Lakota Sioux)
Those 3 were great planners and strategists.

Being active among the Sioux I am very much interested in the Sioux leaders of the past. I spend a lot of time on and near Pine Ridge and often pass by some of the great battle sites and hear stories of the famous Chiefs.

:ooh: I remember learning briefly, in history a couple of years ago, about Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, and their role in the Battle of Little Bighorn...we'd looked at it mostly with the angle of Custer's mistakes; his failed signature three-prong attack, etc...:-[ I remember little else (but I'd love to hear more!)

[Zafran]

Salaam

although I'm not realy familar with Military history I believe that Nopolean Bonoparte was preety significant.
You also have Hanbal of Carthage.
Mehmed the second on Constaninople
The mongols in sheer military might - Genghis Khan

Ofcourse for Islam there is Saladin and Khlaed ibn Walead.

[Clover]

Salaam

although I'm not realy familar with Military history I believe that Nopolean Bonoparte was preety significant.
You also have Hanbal of Carthage.
Mehmed the second on Constaninople
The mongols in sheer military might - Genghis Khan

Ofcourse for Islam there is Saladin and Khlaed ibn Walead.

Well, you also have my favorites ;):

Philip (The One Eyed) of Macedonia: Alexander's Father, he, or I believe, did a lot more of the hard work, then Alexander, even though Alexander was a great leader, he wasn't completely a great leader, he had some bad obessions.

Pericles of Athens: Fought in the Peloponnessian Wars, great military commander.

Robert E Lee: Fought a force, much larger, much more prepared then his own, yet held his own for 4 years, and surrendered after being surrounded by Union forces.

Nathan B Forrest: Master of Guerrila Warfare, fought in my own state, famous for being the Grand Wizard of the KKK. (no I don't like the KKK, but he is famous for it)

Them are some of them.

[Zafran]

salaam

you also have Julies Ceaser - He was significant in conquering Gaul (France).

[Yanal]

:sl:
Sorry I do not take interest in history as much in P.E. But I do know that Hitler was a bad guy whom killed many. But if I get that offer I would not take it up as a good choice.

[ardianto]

Sadly I am not all that familiar with him. I have been putting off reading his writing Sūn Zǐ Bīng Fǎ (The Art of War).

Many military leaders, such as MacArthur used it as a guide for their strategies.

Not only in military. SunTzu's strategies and tactics are oftenly used in marketing.

[ahsan28]

I find Rommel to have been one of the greatest Generals

Even Winston Churchill was compelled to acknowledge about Rommel in these words:-

"We have a very daring and skillful opponent against us, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great general."


British General Claude Auchinleck, one of Rommel's opponents in Africa, in a letter to his field commanders:-

"There exists a real danger that our friend Rommel is becoming a kind of magical or bogey-man to our troops, who are talking far too much about him. He is by no means a superman, although he is undoubtedly very energetic and able. Even if he were a superman, it would still be highly undesirable that our men should credit him with supernatural powers" and he ended the memo with the line "I am not jealous of Rommel."


Churchill again, on hearing of Rommel's death:

"He also deserves our respect, because, although a loyal German soldier, he came to hate Hitler and all his works, and took part in the conspiracy to rescue Germany by displacing the maniac and tyrant. For this, he paid the forfeit of his life."

[alcurad]

both Britain & Russia would have fallen to the Reich if not for Hitler believing rumors about secret weapons being developed by the Brits, and halting both invasions midway.

[ahsan28]

Hitler was preoccupied with the Russian front and many divisions of the German army were already committed to it. At that time, the priorities of reinforcements, replenishments and the air efforts were diverted fron North Africa to Russian front. Despite repeated calls made by Rommel for the urgent logistic suppiles and reinforcements, at the most critical stage of the compaign, he was not provided with what he needed.

Rommel was defeated due to logistic constraints, mainly due to ill-planning and rigidity on the part of Hitler :-[

[Zafran]

both Britain & Russia would have fallen to the Reich if not for Hitler believing rumors about secret weapons being developed by the Brits, and halting both invasions midway.

Salaam

I dont think that would have happend - The Russian weather played a big part and so did Hitlers obbsession of invading Russia - Hitlers Generals were shocked to fight on two fronts but Hitlers greed made him over confident that he could take out Russia easily. Which clearly was a mistake.

Hitler made a mistake in figting on two fronts and underestimating the Russians.

[Zafran]

Hitler was preoccupied with the Russian front and many divisions of the German army were already committed to it. At that time, the priorities of reinforcements, replenishments and the air efforts were diverted fron North Africa to Russian front. Despite repeated calls made by Rommel for the urgent logistic suppiles and reinforcements, at the most critical stage of the compaign, he was not provided with what he needed.

Rommel was defeated due to logistic constraints, mainly due to ill-planning and rigidity on the part of Hitler :-[

salaam

I agree this clearly shows Hitler lost it.......his obsession to take over Russia killed him at the end.

[alcurad]

right, but my point was that the third Reich did in fact have the capacity to invade both the British Isles & Russia if not for some bad decisions on Hitler's part.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...ingrussia.aspx

[ahsan28]

That could have been possible, I am not sure about that . But the important consideration in military strategy is to avoid reinforcing failure and concentrate on what you can do, within the existing resources and capabilities. Its always better to restrict to the main objective. Too many objectives create confusion and lead to clash of priorities, besides resulting in dissipation of resources. One has the flexibility of exercising various ways and means, provided they ultimately converge at the main objective. I think Hitler didn't have the ability to utilize the most professional and competent field commanders, military can ever produce.

[alcurad]

^true, although at times you have to fight on more than one front, for example the arab invasion of Egypt, Persia and the fertile crescent was almost simultaneous, but they did avoid the harder spots.

[ardianto]

A question for moderator.

Regarding to this topic, may I insert picture of weapon or military vehicle or photo of a battle in my post ?.

[Woodrow]

A question for moderator.

Regarding to this topic, may I insert picture of weapon or military vehicle or photo of a battle in my post ?.

Our ban on pictures of military weapons are mainly in avatars, signatures and profiles. If it is important for the clarity of the post and the post is not promoting violence I have no objection as long as the picture is a vital part of the post.

[Alim Apprentice]

Though I'm not a total devotee of military history, I certainly appreciate knowing about the strategies, tactics and technology employed in battles throughout history.