Title says it all, talk about your favorite time period, or country, in terms of its military history. My current favorite would be the 16th and 17th centuries, in Europe. In particular, the 30 years war, IMO Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden was one of the best tacticians , and the base for a lost of generals in modern history.
What's your favorite Era/ country of military history
- Thread starter Ben Hussong
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Civil War era stuff is cool, especially since I live about five minutes' drive from the site of the Battle of Bull Run, and a good number of other battles (understatement alert!) were fought here in VA.
Republic or empire is probably a better way of putting it. I know it's hardly different, but the role of the republic versus the role of the Caesar's is a huge factor. Rome was already, in a sense, and empire before the emperors came about, it just became a more official title more or less.Ben Hussong said:
True, i was just kinda phrasing it in terms of " before or after they had the post of " emperor" but either way, they were definitely an imperialistic power. The whole history of Rome is fascinating, in particular compared to Greece, who i consider to be kind of a contemporary in some aspects.Hader said:
Ancient Rome, the time of Julius Caesar, those guys had class...either them or Vikings in 950 AD, why 950AD? Because I like that number.
Yeah I understand. But I am quite the history buff regarding anything involving the republicBen Hussong said:
The fact that Rome was still able to field large armies against Hannibal after he slaughtered three of them in Italy itself is a testament to Rome's imperialistic tendencies, well before Marius, Caesar, Pompey,and Crassus were even born.
Yeah I found the whole Second Punic war to be fascinating, and Scipio Africanus to be an amazing general. Hanibal was a great tactical thinker as well, but in the end he was outmatched.Hader said:Yeah I understand. But I am quite the history buff regarding anything involving the republicBen Hussong said:
The fact that Rome was still able to field large armies against Hannibal after he slaughtered three of them in Italy itself is a testament to Rome's imperialistic tendencies, well before Marius, Caesar, Pompey,and Crassus were even born.
thats like the Ohio Valley area, particularly South Western PA during the French and Indian (Seven Years for you across the pond) War.smearyllama said:
Hannibal would have taken Rome down if it wasn't for the guys back in Carthage thinking he couldn't do it, and refusing to support his invasion any further. He can only win so many battles before his lack of numbers will start to hurt him tactically. The Romans may have been utterly destroyed by him many times before but the armies they equipped were still capable of killing. Eventually, numbers did matter. Cannae still hurt Hannibal despite such an overwhelming victory. That tied with the fact Rome finally chose a competent commander...well, I actually felt a bit sorry for Hannibal!Ben Hussong said:
I have always found World War 2 interesting, and not just the American campaigns either. The campaigns of Nazi Germany have always been particularly interested in the Eastern Front.
True, there's always something frustrating and sad about a good leader laid low by politics back home. And Cannae had a huge effect on Rome, from what I remember, it caused a change in their military structure and organization. That entire war is filled with genius tactics and maneuvers. It really changed, IMO how Rome's military did things.Hader said:
