What are your favorite wars to study?

Without a doubt, my personal favorite is World War 2, which shows signs of influence from my father (who was also very interested in it). After that, my second favorites are World War I and the Napoleonic Wars. Other than that, I'm not particularly interested in many specific wars, but rather general time frames of military history.

A good example is the Medieval period. Rather than study specific wars (like the Hundred Years War or the Crusades for example), I prefer largely to study the general nature of warfare from that time period (with specific wars and battles filling me in when needed). It's only around 1850 that I start getting more interested in specific wars and battles.

I have always been fascinated with The Battle of Agincourt (Oct 1415). The French were far superior in numbers yet were routed by the English. Good leadership can make a huge difference. This battle was especially bitter; the field was literally a sea of mud. After the battle, Henry V had the French prisoners executed.

If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

-- Wm. Shakespeare, King Henry V

The battle of Ayn Jalut (the Pool of Goliath) in 1260 has also held my interest for a good while. Baybars soundly routed the Mongols there, which put his name on a rather short list of commanders throughout history. Had this Muslim fanatic been less proficient at war, Europe might have eventually fallen to the Mongol hordes. History is full of ironies.

The Mongol-Koryo invasions of Japan in 1274 and 1281 are fascinating, and also amusing in an ironic sense. Both invasions failed both times at the hand of Mother Nature. Of course these helpful, well-timed typhoons gave rise to the Japanese myth of Kamikaze ("Divine Wind").

The battle of Agincourt is indeed fascinating, and I love Shakespeare's account of it. Although, Henry had an advantage with the terrain of the battlefield. There were forrests at each side of the field and they narrowed down where the English positioned themselves. That was key because the French could not use their full force to bear on the English.

Greek wars (esp. Battle of Thermopylae)
Viking invasions
Eighty Years' War
Thirty Years' War (esp. Battle of Lützen - 1632)
Seven Years' War
Napoleonic Wars
Crimean War
Franco-Prussian War
WWI
WWII

All wars here after are ****.

Prof. Emmett O'Byrne:
"As far as I'm concerned the world, pritty much ends around 1690"

Prof Dáibhí Ó Croinín:
"Anything after 1700 is just journalism."

Maidhcín:
"I agree"

P.S. This relates only to Irish history.

World War II without a doubt is my favorite. The U.S Civil War is also a good one but I do not study it that much. I guess the Viking Invasions are a fun part of history to study.

The Crusades and the Hundred Years War.

World Wars I and II, the American Revolution, and the American Civil War. What can I say? I'm American. :)

1939-45. European / Russia / North Afrika/ Atlantic aspects. (mostly).
1914-18 , Some aspects. Battle of the Somme , I defy anyone not to be both educated and moved by Middlebrooks " First day on The Somme"

Would really like to know more about the America Civil War , if anyone can recommend any good reading on it , I eel it gave a glimpse of what 14-18 was like or what war would be like in the future .
The mass musket shot giving way to killing at the hands of the machine.

On subject of Ireland Richard Doherty's book on the Williamite wars was really excellent.

Modern warfare sucks. Some of my books:

The Hundred Years War: The English in France 1337-1453 (1999)
By Desmond Seward

From the back cover:

From 1337 to 1453 England repeatedly invaded France on the pretext that her kings had a right to the French throne. Though a small, poor country, England for most of those "hundred years" won the battles, sacked the towns and castles, and dominated the war. The protagonists of the Hundred Years War are among the most colorful in European history: Edward II, the Black Prince; Henry V, who was later immortalized by Shakespeare: the splendid but inept John II, who died a prisoner in London; Charles V, who very nearly overcame England; and the enigmatic Charles VII, who at last drove the English out. Desmond Seward's critically acclaimed account brings to life all of the intrique, heroics, and royal to-the-death fighting of that legendary century-long conflict.

The Northern Crusades (1997)
by Eric Christiansen

From the back cover:

Inspired by the Pope's call for a Holy War, Scandinavian rulers and German military monks conquered and settled Finland, Estonia and Prussia, before turning on the eastern empires of Orthodox Novgorod and pagan Lithuania. These 'Northern Crusades' are less celebrated than those in the Middle East, but they were also far more successful. Vast new territories became and remain Christian, while the central institutions of medieval western Europe -- churches, castles, manors, guilds, parliaments and feudal law codes -- were introduced into the dark and inhospitable outer world. Now newly revised in the light of the recent developments in Baltic and Northern medieval research, this authoritative overview provides a balanced and compelling account of a tumultuous era.

The Dream and the Tomb: A History of the Crusades (2000)
by Robert Payne

From the back cover:

The Crusades were not just a military event; they were a cultural awakening, a call to nations, and a testament of faith for both Christians and Muslims on a scale unparalled in history. Calling themselves "pilgrims of Christ," thousands of European men, women, and even children from all stations in life undertook the harsh and bloody quest to reclaim the Holy Land for Christendom.

This comprehensive history recounts each of the eight holy wars waged between 1095 and 1270. Robert Payne brings to life every step of the Crusaders' thousand-mile journey: the deprivation; the desperate, rapacious, and brutal raids for good and supplies; the epic battles for Antioch, Jerusalem, and Acre; the barbarous treatment of captives; and the quarrelling European princes who vied for power and wealth in the Near East. An epic tale of the glorious and the base, of unshakable faith and unspeakable atrocities, The Dream and the Tomb captures not only the events but the very essence of the Crusades.

The Devil's Horsemen: The Mongol Invasion of Europe (2003)
by James Chambers

The Mongols formed one of the finest armies ever known--and when they swept across the Danube on Christmas Day 1241, the west lay at the mercy of these "horsemen from hell." From a wealth of contemporary sources comes the story of these soldiers, and especially of Subedei Bahadur, the illiterate military genius who brought 20th-century warfare to Medieval Europe. A fascinating examination of their tactics and training--good enough to invent strategies that Rommel and Patton would later use to such devastating effect--proves the Mongols were more than mere barbarians: they were martial masterminds of the highest order.

Early Carolingian Warfare: Prelude to Empire (2001)
by Bernard S. Bachrach

Without the complex military machine that his forbears built up over the course of the eighth century, it would have been impossible for Charlemagne to revive the Roman empire in the West. Early Carolingian Warfare is the first book-length study of how this Frankish dynasty, beginning with Pippin II, established its power and cultivated its military expertise in order to reestablish the regnum Francorum, a geographical area of the late Roman period that represents much of present-day France and western Germany. Bernard Bachrach has thoroughly examined contemporary sources, including court chronicles, military handbooks, and late Roman histories and manuals, to establish how the early Carolingians used their legacy of political and military techniques and strategies forged in imperial Rome to regain control in the West.

Pippin II and his successors were not diverted by opportunities for financial enrichment in the short term through raids and campaigns outside of the regnum Francorum; they focused on conquest with sagacious sensibilities, preferring bloodless diplomatic solutions to unnecessarily destructive warfare, and disdained military glory for its own sake. But when they had to deploy their military forces, their operations were brutal and efficient. Their training was exceptionally well developed, and their techniques included hand-to-hand combat, regimented troop movements, fighting on horseback with specialized mounted soldiers, and the execution of lengthy sieges employing artillery. In order to sustain their long-term strategy, the early Carolingians relied on a late Roman model whereby soldiers were recruited from among the militarized population who were required by law to serve outside their immediate communities. The ability to mass and train large armies from among farmers and urban-dwellers gave the Carolingians the necessary power to lay siege to the old Roman fortress cities that dominated the military topography of the West. Bachrach includes fresh accounts of Charles Martel's defeat of the Muslims at Poitiers in 732, and Pippin's successful siege of Bourges in 762, demonstrating that in the matter of warfare there never was a western European Dark Age that ultimately was enlightened by some later Renaissance. The early Carolingians built upon surviving military institutions, adopted late antique technology, and effectively utilized their classical intellectual inheritance to prepare the way militarily for Charlemagne's empire.

I have always been fascinated with The Battle of Agincourt (Oct 1415). The French were far superior in numbers yet were routed by the English. Good leadership can make a huge difference. This battle was especially bitter; the field was literally a sea of mud. After the battle, Henry V had the French prisoners executed.


They were routed for a few reasons.

One was that the field formed a funnel, with the English at the Narrow end. The French failed to take this into account and got stuck basically while attacking.

The French wore metal boots. This didn't cause them to sink into the mud that much compared to the English's cloth boots, it just caused a suction which tired the French troops.

The French were all greedy who wanted to take English prisoners for ransom. Rather than follow orders most French units went after the high prized English in the centre, leaving the worthless (money wise) archers on the flanks alone. When the French became overly tired from the suction of the mud the longbowmen of the English closed in and killed many with just their knives.

One of the myths of this period was that the longbow could penetrate all armour easily. The French armour of that time was actually pretty much impossible to penetrate with a longbow. The English used them because they were cheaper than other troop types.

And yeah, that's all I know about that. :mad:

Wow. YD's post was actually interesting and informative. It contained nothing about Hitler! Way to go, YD. :p

More about the battle at Wikipedia:


Recent experiments at Agincourt and elsewhere suggest that the English archers inflicted little damage on the heavily armored French knights and men-at-arms with their arrows because of the recent adoption of steel (rather than iron) for armor. It is likely then that most of the casualties of the archery were the less-armored horses, causing the mounted fighters to be thrown down onto the muddy ground, where they had difficulty in arising. In addition, the French troops were exhausted by struggling through the quagmire which they were churning up on the battlefield and arrived piecemeal at the English line of battle.

A second feature contributing to the French defeat was the funnel-shaped battlefield that caused the French forces to converge as they approached the English lines. As they moved forward, they jostled each other and tripped over the bodies of the fallen horses and men. It is possible that many actually suffocated as they were trampled into the mud by the following soldiers and knights. This suggestion has been supported by computer models and video footage used to study crowd disasters at football grounds and music concerts.

Into this chaos the lightly armored archers moved, much more nimbly than the heavily armored French, and were able to inflict severe damage on the enemy with their short swords, knives, mallets, and other tools. This suggests that the archers did considerably more damage as infantry than as archers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

The campaigns of Alexander of Macedon
The Crusades
WW I
WW II

On subject of Ireland Richard Doherty's book on the Williamite wars was really excellent.

Never read the book, but that was really a pivotal point in our history.

The battle of Agincourt is indeed fascinating, and I love Shakespeare's account of it. Although, Henry had an advantage with the terrain of the battlefield. There were forrests at each side of the field and they narrowed down where the English positioned themselves. That was key because the French could not use their full force to bear on the English.

Securing your flanks in a narrow battlefield is often the key to victory against a opponent with superior numbers in ancient warfare . Had Terentius Varro not accepted ( As Paulus was councelling him not to ) to battle Hannibal at Cannea, were, iirc, Hannibal had its flanks secured by two rivers, the roman armymight have been able to make full advantage of its numerical superiority, and not blindly march on in the double or triple depth formation that got turned and annihilated. The 2nd punic war might then have lasted for like 6 years less ...
As Varro was blinded by his political ambition and glory, the leaders of the French army at Agincourt, despite holding a serious strategical advantage, stupidly decided to show theirmanly prowess here and now . Not that untill the companions of Joan of Arc and Excepting Du Guesclin, the French were renowned for their commandeering skills ...

Securing your flanks in a narrow battlefield is often the key to victory against a opponent with superior numbers in ancient warfare .

I know. That was a major advantage Henry V had in the battle, his flanks were protected on each side by thick forrests. If it werent for those forrests, Henry V would have certainly had a much more difficult time holding his position(my assestment since I hate playing alternate history and claim he would have lost when we dont know) .

Not that untill the companions of Joan of Arc and Excepting Du Guesclin, the French were renowned for their commandeering skills ...

Well Joan of Arc was not a strageist and did not command the French army. She was influential in rising French morale to fight and for that she deserves the eternal gratitude of the French people, but her accomplishments were not as a strategist.

My favourite is the battle of Jutland, a naval battle in WW1. What's so cool about it is that noone agrees as to who won it. I tend to see it as a draw.

At Agincourt the greatest contribution by the English archers was probably taking down French horses. What good is a knight in full plate without a horse? Especially in muddy terrain.

WWI is a very interesting topic. It's a great example of how technology changed things, and how generals really for the most part weren't able to adjust.

Hannabalic wars
Eastern Roman wars against the Vandals/Goths
The Spanish Reconquista

The battle of Agincourt is indeed fascinating, and I love Shakespeare's account of it. Although, Henry had an advantage with the terrain of the battlefield. There were forrests at each side of the field and they narrowed down where the English positioned themselves. That was key because the French could not use their full force to bear on the English.

Agincourt is a battle I have difficulty working up much enthusiasm for. Certainly it was an amazing tactical victory, but it really didn't seem to do much of anything in a strategic sense. The British territory in France kept getting smaller, and they ultimately still got pushed out of the country. As best I can tell, all it did was slow down something that was pretty close to inevitable. Perhaps I'm wrong or being unfair, but that's my take on that one. I mean, how would history have turned out any different if the British had lost? They'd get booted from France one or two centuries ahead of when they actually were. I don't see much else changing, certainly nothing like a French invasion of Britain.

I find Stalingrad and Gettysburg much more interesting precisely because they seem to me to be battles where the defeat of the Soviets or the Union might have had a huge impact on later history.

Agincourt is a battle I have difficulty working up much enthusiasm for.
But then, you are a pessimist aren't you? :p

Seriously though, I'm more interested in the battle itself than its historical repurcussions.

But then, you are a pessimist aren't you? :p

Christ, yes. And I'm getting worse all the time. ;)


Seriously though, I'm more interested in the battle itself than its historical repurcussions.

I know, and that is a very fair criticism. I guess I just don't have much enthusiasm for wars or battles as "things in themselves," only when they serve as some sort of decisive change. I think I noted that obliquely in my response to Perun. Personal failing on my part. I just see a whole lot of dead French Nobles in mud.

Perhaps somebody could refresh my memory: What was the immediate to intermediate aftermath of the battle of Agincourt? As best I can recall all Henry and his troops did was wander aimlessly around northern and western France for a few weeks or months and then go home. And, they didn't or couldn't march on Paris for some reason, whether due to lack of supplies or siege equipment. Is that roughly the chronology? It is kind of on the basis of that the whole enterprise has alwasys struck me as rather silly. If I've got it wrong, I'll retract my thoughts.

EYTYXEITE!
Dear Fellows, I'm dealing with the legendary "ESTRADIOTI", a mercenary-Corps founded by Venetians to fight Ottomans.
Unfortunately, this para-military Corps mostly consisted by Greeks has a great history unknown to the public.
It was fighting against Ottomans before Constantinopel's occupation and they were first revolutionist against Ottoman Empire before to start the rest of Greeks.
I start to study its tradition because many ancestors of mine were fighters of this Corps, so, the Venetians regognizing their heroism offered the family the heraldic arm which is my Avatar in this Forum.
Of course, my second point is the II WW.

¸óôùóáí ïé Èåïß áñùãïß Õìþí!