I believe WWII is the most interesting time to learn about. A man who I believe to be severely mentally ill took control of a country and used it to take control of nearly the entire continent. Most large world powers rose up against a giant evil and worked together to bring it down, boosting the economy of many countries world-wide and launching technology forward at an alarming rate. During this, the rest of the world had their own things going on, each country has stories, many of which relating to the war, and essentially one man.

One sick man changed the world.

I agree that he was sick and a terrible person. But it's when people state that he wasn't a great leader that ticks me off. It's obvious that he is one of the greatest leaders of all time, his heart just wasn't in the right place.

Modern Warfare is definately the most interesting to me, especially since its the most important at the moment.

I'd think it s the Renaissance to to the WW1 era. This was when the weapons of war were drastically changing and we still hadn't go used to them.

My personal favorite to discuss/study is WW2 or Rome to Middle Ages.

And I suppose you're the authority to turn to? :rolleyes:

I was going to question the Punic Wars not being in the Roman category but I suppose if the OP meant the Romans before they professionalized the army when the land owners formed the infantry corps (and thus everyone when it came to Romans ) then it could be "alright" to separate them that way.

Kjarista did not claim authority, merely a fact that periods in history do have proper names and definitions and making up your own is confusing to the extreme.

I've always liked WWII.

Yet you do not say what or offer corrections. That's useful. :mellow:

I'm open to correction

So why they are not yet defeated then?

I got guerrilla training while back in the army. I know basics of guerrilla warfare, and one of them is not killing your own countrymen (civs). Guerrilla tries
to achieve love and support of people. Which is essential part of any guerrilla resistance. Well, if you got giant mountain range to hide that is also great
advantage.

Setting IED's ambushes and other stuff is key on any guerrilla operation. It might sound dirty way to fight, but if you are outnumbered and outgunned by
1 to 10,000 there is really no other choice.

i voted ancient. because even waaaaaaaaay back then, THEY HAD SPEARS. *cough* skyrim *cough*

US Civil War for me as well...I'm not sure why exactly. The end of a certain era of warfare (and the refusal by many at the time to recognize it/alter their approach...)...which is an area I always find interesting in any period.

After that...the Swiss in the 1300-1400's w/their pike dominance fascinate me, so I guess that would be Middle-Ages. Don't care about causes of war or even the whole "period" so much but rather it's the evolution & rise and fall of field strategy/tactics of certain weapons (pike, longbow, beginning of cavalry dominance to the end of cavalry dominance etc) that I like to study.

I dunno know. They're all interesting to me. I find the tech and fire power we have today amazing, but war just seemed so much cleaner back then (not literally of course)

In whatever wars, being a civilian in it was not a good idea. Just look at the Allies causing firestorms in Dresden/Hamburg. If you go back you can probably find genocide after genocide, massacre after massacre.

Most are unintended (by the strategists, not the soldiers themselves) though, whilst the majority of terrorism (a major aspect of war in these times) is towards civilians, however in WW2 the Blitzkrieg made being a civilian just as terrofying

Which was why the US dropped atomic bombs on population centres? The huge civilian death toll was unintended? I doubt it.

The same with the bombing of German Dresden. It didn't have a huge effect on the outcome of the war and there is no way you can throw 750 bombers at a city and not expect huge civilian deaths.


The majority of the deaths due to terrorists in the UK has been service personnel I think, however that was mainly due to the IRA.

I suspect that it is highly likely that while we think of terrorism as against civilians the deaths of military personal to civilian deaths is probably about the same. If you look at the deaths in modern wars for example, the vast majority are civilians. I don't think this has changed that much since Genghis Kahn raised Chinese cities to the ground.

There are also vast differences in terrorist organisations (as defined by the west). Many of them are involved in what the majority of local states view as resistance. It is only the fact that we are on the opposite side that we call them terrorists. Others seem to have no aim other that to tear down the current world order as if it will make the world a better place.

jacked my thread idea?
reworded it so people wouldnt flame?
good work
lol

i loved Greek and the WW1 era

Perhaps but it doesn't change that Kjarista didn't do anything to offer any fixes. Someone with no knowledge could say "its wrong" but it tells big time about the person if they don't offer anything themselves :shrug:

aww poor eagle. damn that wording :wink_smile:

Civilians die is wars. end of story.

:mohawk: