Military History Lovers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Clover
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 45
  • Views Views 8K
Clover

Clover

IB Veteran
Messages
709
Reaction score
72
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.
 
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
 
Gossamer skye said:
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
Click to expand...

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).
 
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..
 
Gossamer skye said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Clover said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Gossamer skye said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Clover said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
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.
 
Gossamer skye said:
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
Click to expand...

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!
 
Woodrow said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Clover said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Woodrow said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Clover said:
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!
Click to expand...


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..

800px-otmaa_1910_in_court_dress_3.jpg


http://promega.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/the-play-is-over/


there were just two grave sites, one of the young boy and the young girl and the other of the rest..
 
Gossamer skye said:
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/2009/03/23/the-play-is-over/


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

I am sorry for being wrong. I thought they never found her body, thanks for correcting me.
 
Clover said:
I am sorry for being wrong. I thought they never found her body, thanks for correcting me.
Click to expand...


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
 
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).
 
ardianto said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top