Most Overrated Battles (as PoDs)?

[cimon]

But by then it was a general war of conquest-and you just said yourself he was busey fighting the scythians. He wouoldnt have continued his campaign west without there being a real need too-and no need to avenge a defeat makes any further campaigning pointless. You say Sparta was powerful, true-but they didnt have a fleet and in thelong scale of things were really insignificent in the med. I think that Sp[arta would most likely come to an arrangment with the persians-it only went to war in 480 because it knew it had the backing of Athens. Thermopalaye would have been lost sooner without the athenian fleet guarding the artimesium straits.

No! Darius retreated from the Skythians and crossed the Danube in disarray but he promised to return;ditto with Athens;if the city was burned to the ground like Eretria,there is no reason to believe that it would be otherwise,we speak of subjugation not punishment or that was equivelant to punishment as the Persians saw it and thus the Persians dominate Greece to the Isthmus.The majority of Historians think that the Persians(if they won) they were there to stay(N.G.L. Hammond,Bury& Meiggs,A.R.Burn)
Sparta?wrong again!Sparta,as it proved in the war was stronger than Persia.Peloponnese could not be invaded from the Isthmus,and the east has only three places for sea landings,all very heavily protected and near the aereas of concentration of the allied armies and within hours the armies of the Peloponnesian alliance.The Spartans had no intention of defending Thermopylae at all.The Spartan army that marched to Plataea
would stay in the Peloponnese for some time until the Persians show their intentions,and then the army would march out to meet them!the Persians did not have a hope in hell.

 

[cimon]

How do you figure that the RAF would have less fighters? Without the nazis attacking them, their bases or the industry that MAKES the planes then how on earth would they somehow have less? That makes no sense.

And yes, the navy can be out of range of the nazi planes but still within enough range to prevent an invasion. Leave them further north, or mor towards Ireland and they are effectively out of range of the enemy attacks, but can easily (and in short time) sail into the channel to intercept an invasion force or cut off its supply chain.

If memory serves the nazis managed to sink a half a dozen or so british destroyers during the Dunkirk evacuation, destroyers that were stationary at the time. There were signficantly more than a half dozen involved in the operation too. So while having all the advantages the actual effectiveness of the air attacks was very limited. Now, if the ships are at sea, without the need to remain in place and without the need to protect men stranded on shore and you are getting a very different situation altogether.

And how do you find and sink these ships easily? How much fuel will you waste while your planes fly in circles over the expanse of the channel looking for ships to attack? How far would your planes be spread out in this search? And how would you stop the RAF from attacking these spread out planes with greater local numbers?

The RAF did very well against the nazis when they attacked the mainland, what evidence do you have that shows that this trend would suddenly be reversed if the battles were to take place further out?

And you may have "argued" this on other sites but that is totally meaningless. You must present your arguments here for people to challenge because so far what little you have said does not support your claim.

You don't belong to armed forces do you? you would know that the English airforce was not rested as you think,The Germans had superiority 2:1 i fighters,and the Luftwaffe bombers were near 2500;it makes a hell of a difference to have fuel for 10 minutes over England and leave the Bombers unprotected and the RAF fighters to fly at will over homeground with tankers full therefore unlimited manoevres and the Germans severely restricted due to fuel shortage;so again the 2500 bombers,adequately protected by fighters and manoevring as much as the English over the channel; Of course some of them both were(not many) for overhaul or repairs but they would return to flight condition soon, as the Germans proved that they repaired machines in great rapidity in Europe and in Africa later.
Crete was a naval disaster for the British caused by Luftwaffe and they didn't hit there only destroyers,even the battleship Warspite was seriously hit and a number od cruisers hit or sunk.No navy can stand such pounding,and there the Luftwaffe was represented by the 8th Luftcorps of Volfram von Richthoffen,in the Channel...there would be a lot more.
That is mainly in a nutshell...
Over England the germans would have their on aifields on the ground every army would do that as routine for supply purposes mainly and for defence,plus the antiaircraft artillery of the army units.
As for evidence:war is not a court of law where evidence is provided,it is surmised from assessment and results ex-post facto.That is how knowledge is accumulated and taught in schools of war were students are seasoned officers who have held command.However once on the English beaches,the anti-aircraft defence would prove leathal and enhence greatly
the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe;an example:study the retreat(crossing) of the German army from Sicily to mainland Italy by the general of Panzertruppen Hube under a tremendous anti-aircraft fire barrier that prevented the American and British bombers to disrupt the crossing(summer 1943).
For operation 'Hermes' read mainly the archives of the Vehrmacht "The Years of War,vol VIII(Fom Serbien bis Creta-From Serbia to Crete) at my time they were in Alexandria, Washington,but I heard they were transferred back to Germany and extracts were published frequently,so many European books exist on the subject.

 

[mowque]

You don't belong to armed forces do you? you would know that the English airforce was not rested as you think,The Germans had superiority 2:1 i fighters,and the Luftwaffe bombers were near 2500;it makes a hell of a difference to have fuel for 10 minutes over England and leave the Bombers unprotected and the RAF fighters to fly at will over homeground with tankers full therefore unlimited manoevres and the Germans severely restricted due to fuel shortage;so again the 2500 bombers,adequately protected by fighters and manoevring as much as the English over the channel; Of course some of them both were(not many) for overhaul or repairs but they would return to flight condition soon, as the Germans proved that they repaired machines in great rapidity in Europe and in Africa later.
Crete was a naval disaster for the British caused by Luftwaffe and they didn't hit there only destroyers,even the battleship Warspite was seriously hit and a number od cruisers hit or sunk.No navy can stand such pounding,and there the Luftwaffe was represented by the 8th Luftcorps of Volfram von Richthoffen,in the Channel...there would be a lot more.
That is mainly in a nutshell...

We've blown a Nazi landing in England to hell and back a hundred times ont his forum. I'd suggest you back away now, very slowly.

 

[Elfwine]

We've blown a Nazi landing in England to hell and back a hundred times ont his forum. I'd suggest you back away now, very slowly.

Ah, but has anyone proposed this particular "solution"?

I haven't even read the "This is why Sealion is doomed." arguments beyond the sum up, and . . .

Well, I can see it being possible under the right conditions, but all of them seem to involve two things:

1) Good German transports.

2) Giving the RAF the idiot ball and making it hold on to it like Brer Rabbit and Tar Baby.

Anything short of both of those and the most you can do is get a lot of good men killed. Even if the BEF is underequipped, invasions like this are tough. And that's after you make the actual landings possible.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

No! Darius retreated from the Skythians and crossed the Danube in disarray but he promised to return;ditto with Athens;if the city was burned to the ground like Eretria,there is no reason to believe that it would be otherwise,we speak of subjugation not punishment or that was equivelant to punishment as the Persians saw it and thus the Persians dominate Greece to the Isthmus.The majority of Historians think that the Persians(if they won) they were there to stay(N.G.L. Hammond,Bury& Meiggs,A.R.Burn)
Sparta?wrong again!Sparta,as it proved in the war was stronger than Persia.Peloponnese could not be invaded from the Isthmus,and the east has only three places for sea landings,all very heavily protected and near the aereas of concentration of the allied armies and within hours the armies of the Peloponnesian alliance.The Spartans had no intention of defending Thermopylae at all.The Spartan army that marched to Plataea
would stay in the Peloponnese for some time until the Persians show their intentions,and then the army would march out to meet them!the Persians did not have a hope in hell.

Yes they might retain a strong garrison in athens- but its unlikely they would continue there expansion. The inital persian force was too small, the other greek states hated athens anyway ( well except tiny little platea-who sadly wouldnt last very long.) I personally think persia had really overreached itself by that point-communications across sea-particually in the age before ocean going vessels would be a nightmare-any land bridge bouild could be sabotarged, and any reinforcments would take an age to arrive.

Look, my main problem with your theory is the fact you said they would expand to occupy southern italy and into southetn europe. That would be the
ancient worlds equivilent of that accused sea animal-and we all know how possible THAT IS.

The will, troops, logistics and scope to do so was simply lacking. In my opinion persia hed really reached its peak by the end of the persian wars-after this, the persian empire went into a steep decline and civil war-all the sign that the instant a strong king to hold the whole, fragile, powder keg that was the persian empire together went-it was effectivly doomed. The govormental structure wasnt their.

 

[krull1m]

You don't belong to armed forces do you? you would know that the English airforce was not rested as you think,The Germans had superiority 2:1 i fighters,and the Luftwaffe bombers were near 2500;it makes a hell of a difference to have fuel for 10 minutes over England and leave the Bombers unprotected and the RAF fighters to fly at will over homeground with tankers full therefore unlimited manoevres and the Germans severely restricted due to fuel shortage;so again the 2500 bombers,adequately protected by fighters and manoevring as much as the English over the channel; Of course some of them both were(not many) for overhaul or repairs but they would return to flight condition soon, as the Germans proved that they repaired machines in great rapidity in Europe and in Africa later.
Crete was a naval disaster for the British caused by Luftwaffe and they didn't hit there only destroyers,even the battleship Warspite was seriously hit and a number od cruisers hit or sunk.No navy can stand such pounding,and there the Luftwaffe was represented by the 8th Luftcorps of Volfram von Richthoffen,in the Channel...there would be a lot more.
That is mainly in a nutshell...
Over England the germans would have their on aifields on the ground every army would do that as routine for supply purposes mainly and for defence,plus the antiaircraft artillery of the army units.
As for evidence:war is not a court of law where evidence is provided,it is surmised from assessment and results ex-post facto.That is how knowledge is accumulated and taught in schools of war were students are seasoned officers who have held command.However once on the English beaches,the anti-aircraft defence would prove leathal and enhence greatly
the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe;an example:study the retreat(crossing) of the German army from Sicily to mainland Italy by the general of Panzertruppen Hube under a tremendous anti-aircraft fire barrier that prevented the American and British bombers to disrupt the crossing(summer 1943).
For operation 'Hermes' read mainly the archives of the Vehrmacht "The Years of War,vol VIII(Fom Serbien bis Creta-From Serbia to Crete) at my time they were in Alexandria, Washington,but I heard they were transferred back to Germany and extracts were published frequently,so many European books exist on the subject.

Not that it matters but I am not a member of the armed forces....... anymore. I was an officer in the British army for some years so I do know a few things.

Under your scenario you would have the RAF being left alone for many months, no attacks on their airstrips, no bomber raids over London. So they would have plenty of time to rest up and rebuild their forces. They managed an outstanding job during the BoB so there is no reason at all to suggest that they would do a worse job here.

As I have said before, the RAF do not need to "fight for control" of the channel because that is nothing more than a temporary problem for them and of virtually no benefit to the nazis. So they can put their invasion fleet to see, then what? They can try to land on the UK but they will then be fighting against a rested and rebuilt RAF that is waiting for them in great numbers, and the Royal Navy which is waiting to cut off any supply lines across the channel.
I attended Sandhurst, and many years ago a number of graduates from there along with noted historians pretty much proved that an invasion would not work and could not succeed as it was effectively impossible for the nazis to control the skies.


And yes, this is not a court of law, but simply stating that you are not going to present a proper argument because you claim to have done it on another website is poor indeed.

 

[cimon]

Yes they might retain a strong garrison in athens- but its unlikely they would continue there expansion. The inital persian force was too small, the other greek states hated athens anyway ( well except tiny little platea-who sadly wouldnt last very long.) I personally think persia had really overreached itself by that point-communications across sea-particually in the age before ocean going vessels would be a nightmare-any land bridge bouild could be sabotarged, and any reinforcments would take an age to arrive.

Look, my main problem with your theory is the fact you said they would expand to occupy southern italy and into southetn europe. That would be the
ancient worlds equivilent of that accused sea animal-and we all know how possible THAT IS.

The will, troops, logistics and scope to do so was simply lacking. In my opinion persia hed really reached its peak by the end of the persian wars-after this, the persian empire went into a steep decline and civil war-all the sign that the instant a strong king to hold the whole, fragile, powder keg that was the persian empire together went-it was effectivly doomed. The govormental structure wasnt their.

I wrote it in plain English:"they had the wherewithal"...I didn't mention southern Europe,also you have your history mixed up,why would anybody hate Athens in 490 BC? and the campaign across the Danube was for conquest and before the Ionian revolution.
Steep decline under Darius the Great in 490 BC? or even under Xerxes,his successor?please...where do you draw your information from?
It is not anyway "my theory" but that of an army of historians before me and it is expressed in their books and treatises.Please check the authors above(A.R Burn "Persia and the Greeks,Bury&Meiggs:"Ancient Greek History to 323 BC and N.G.L.Hammond "Ancient Greek History to 322 BC) and as many more as you like and you will see it was a lot more than a "theory".

 

[cimon]

Not that it matters but I am not a member of the armed forces....... anymore. I was an officer in the British army for some years so I do know a few things.

Under your scenario you would have the RAF being left alone for many months, no attacks on their airstrips, no bomber raids over London. So they would have plenty of time to rest up and rebuild their forces. They managed an outstanding job during the BoB so there is no reason at all to suggest that they would do a worse job here.

As I have said before, the RAF do not need to "fight for control" of the channel because that is nothing more than a temporary problem for them and of virtually no benefit to the nazis. So they can put their invasion fleet to see, then what? They can try to land on the UK but they will then be fighting against a rested and rebuilt RAF that is waiting for them in great numbers, and the Royal Navy which is waiting to cut off any supply lines across the channel.
I attended Sandhurst, and many years ago a number of graduates from there along with noted historians pretty much proved that an invasion would not work and could not succeed as it was effectively impossible for the nazis to control the skies.


And yes, this is not a court of law, but simply stating that you are not going to present a proper argument because you claim to have done it on another website is poor indeed.

No...that is your senario,not mine...I will talk to you later.

 

[RedDogGaz]

Battle of Britain

I'm not going to get into the whys and wherefores of whether Sealion could have succeeded (incidentally I'm with the majority on this one) but the BoB was VERY important. Maybe not so much militarily but for the population generally and particularly so for Londoners and those in the rest of the South of England.
My late grandfather was East London born and bred and I managed to speak to him about the war a little before he passed away many years ago. The effect on the ordinary man in the street was palpable - Britain had a victory, although things were extremely difficult. The Blitz made him homeless on at least 3 occassions.
Isn't it also true that until the Luftwaffe started attacking London, both Dowding and Park were concerned about some of the attacks on the southern most airfields? Wouldn't have affected Sealion IMHO though.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

I wrote it in plain English:"they had the wherewithal"...I didn't mention southern Europe,also you have your history mixed up,why would anybody hate Athens in 490 BC? and the campaign across the Danube was for conquest and before the Ionian revolution.
Steep decline under Darius the Great in 490 BC? or even under Xerxes,his successor?please...where do you draw your information from?
It is not anyway "my theory" but that of an army of historians before me and it is expressed in their books and treatises.Please check the authors above(A.R Burn "Persia and the Greeks,Bury&Meiggs:"Ancient Greek History to 323 BC and N.G.L.Hammond "Ancient Greek History to 322 BC) and as many more as you like and you will see it was a lot more than a "theory".

I said AFTER XERXES IT DECLINED. and even before marathon athens fought a series of battles against the spartans.......and the thebens......and the eurobians. They werwe simply afraid of her rising navel and regional power that upset the prevouis status quo-to say nothing of that dangerouse new idea of democracy ( as you can imagine.......the tyrants in other greek cities didnt like the idea of electing leaders.)

In fact,l the entire war against persia begain because Athens broke their pact of submisson the persia. Why make the pact? To protect against and invading army. And what was that army? oh yes........a SPARTAN ARMY.

Indeed, i can see many greek cities would be more then ready to benifit from athens demise and quickly make an acommodation with persia- thus preserving their govorment ( mostly) and their culture and beliefs.

 

[krull1m]

No...that is your senario,not mine...I will talk to you later.

Well I cant imagine what other scenario you can think of that could end with a successful sealion. Curious to see what you come up with though that hasnt already been suggested and subsequently shot down in flames

 

[Roger II]

I don't really know that it was actually in decline after Xerxes. Retrechment away from some of the more far-flung territories, yes, but they were more than able to fend off most Greek attempts to interfere internally, play Athens and Sparta off against each other, and keep things running sanely internally at last to Xerxes and Ataraxes I and probably later. We also have a handful of letters from the eastern provinces that seem to suggest that rations were being moved around and basic administrative things were getting done.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

I don't really know that it was actually in decline after Xerxes. Retrechment away from some of the more far-flung territories, yes, but they were more than able to fend off most Greek attempts to interfere internally, play Athens and Sparta off against each other, and keep things running sanely internally at last to Xerxes and Ataraxes I and probably later. We also have a handful of letters from the eastern provinces that seem to suggest that rations were being moved around and basic administrative things were getting done.

Just because thinhs are running fine dosnt mean that everythings going up. The persian empire, like rome, sustained itself on conquest and military glory.When its found its path to further exap[nsion blocked, people realised that the persians COULD be beaten, and soon, with no foreign war to distract them the princes and govoners began to fall out. 10,000 greeks famously intervened in a persian civil war. And after the defeat at gaugamela, its amazing the speed in which all the persian generals turned on each other and formed seperate competing states. And many subject states in persai hardly begged to be alowed back under persian rule.

The egyptians, realising that the persian octupus had had its tenticles chopped off tralised it could no long strangle them ( oh metaphores) and broke away succesfully from the empire for quite a long time. And greek and phocian traders soon took over the trade routs that the persians had lost. And after salameis and platea ( but notably NOT after marathon) do we see the rise in greek art, greek culture, democracy,religion across europe and asia.

Salameis was the high water mark of the persian empire. Marathon however, did not reverse this.

 

[Elfwine]

Just because thinhs are running fine dosnt mean that everythings going up. The persian empire, like rome, sustained itself on conquest and military glory.When its found its path to further exap[nsion blocked, people realised that the persians COULD be beaten, and soon, with no foreign war to distract them the princes and govoners began to fall out. 10,000 greeks famously intervened in a persian civil war. And after the defeat at gaugamela, its amazing the speed in which all the persian generals turned on each other and formed seperate competing states. And many subject states in persai hardly begged to be alowed back under persian rule.

Things running fine pretty much means that "steep decline" is not happening.


Gaugamela is more than a century later, so I'm not sure what it has to do with there being an immediate decline.

The egyptians, realising that the persian octupus had had its tenticles chopped off tralised it could no long strangle them ( oh metaphores) and broke away succesfully from the empire for quite a long time. And greek and phocian traders soon took over the trade routs that the persians had lost. And after salameis and platea ( but notably NOT after marathon) do we see the rise in greek art, greek culture, democracy,religion across europe and asia.

Salameis was the high water mark of the persian empire. Marathon however, did not reverse this.

Oh biases.

 

[AbeLincoln1865]

Wait...there's some one on AH.com who actually thinks sealion is POSSIBLE?!?

They planned to use river boats for god's sake man! RIVER BOATS!!!

I'm making this my signature.

 

[Derekc2]

I'm making this my signature.

I had my comment made into a signiture!

Yippeeeee!!!!

I'm so proud of my self!

 

[othyrsyde]

The Battle of Hogwarts. Even if Voldemort would have won, would he really have been able to hold onto Britain in the long run?

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

Things running fine pretty much means that "steep decline" is not happening.


Gaugamela is more than a century later, so I'm not sure what it has to do with there being an immediate decline.
Oh biases.

It wasnt so much an immdiat decline! I didnt say immediat decline. I said slow, painful, gradual decline that showed how bad things had become after gaugamela.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

The Battle of Hogwarts. Even if Voldemort would have won, would he really have been able to hold onto Britain in the long run?

I'm afraid vldamort turning everyone into a deatheater is the sealion of the fantesy world. All historians agree that his freaky laugh would have put everyone off.

 

[Elfwine]

It wasnt so much an immdiat decline! I didnt say immediat decline. I said slow, painful, gradual decline that showed how bad things had become after gaugamela.

Okay, maybe I misread, but:

In my opinion persia hed really reached its peak by the end of the persian wars-after this, the persian empire went into a steep decline and civil war-all the sign that the instant a strong king to hold the whole, fragile, powder keg that was the persian empire together went-it was effectivly doomed.

And "slow, painful, gradual" is the opposite of what you appear to have said here.

So, help a fellow historian out - what are you trying to say here?