NationStates Jolt Archive

While I know that NS is a fairly well educated little population, I find it interesting that (here in the US, at least) people seem to have a blindspot when it comes to certain events in world history.
The two sore spots that get me the most are the Crimean War and the Taiping Rebellion.
With the Crimean War, some people have HEARD of it at least, but oddly enough the terms 'charge of the light brigade' and 'thin red line' mean little to them. A few can go so far as "Isnt that the one where the British kicked the Russians asses?" (Huzzah for the great historical British-Bias! No offence to any Brits present).
I find it odd that a conflict which basically shattered the European political view and changed the face of the world is almost totaly ignored in history books. And when it IS mentioned there tends to be just a teensy bit of bias (as mentioned) towards the British. I recall one history book giving the Russian casualties as over 800,000, against something like 10,000 British (they mentioned 'other allied casualties' as something like 100,000).

The Taiping Rebellion also kinda gets me. Maybe the Chinese dont like to talk about it, but you would figure a civil war where 20-50 million people died would get SOME mention in the history books at least, since it set the stage for Europe to carve up China and paved the way for the communists to take power in China.
And, like the Crimean War, its a great example of what stupid military leadership can do with a large body of men.

Theres others of course, the Russo-Japanese War is often reduced to Tsushima, the actual contents of the Russian Revolution are rarely explored (much less the western attempts to stop it), the Sino-Japanese Wars (pre-WWII of course) are ignored.
Russian conflicts with the Ottomans and Swedes are almost never mentioned either.

Maybe my college just gave us crappy textbooks, but it seems to be a fairly global trend outside of more focused history books. Hell, even Wells 'forgets' to mention most of this stuff in his 'Outline of History', but one gets the impression that he didnt like Russians or Chinese very much anyway.
It was entertaining though :P

The War of Jenkins' Ear. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins'_Ear) It has a much better name, too.

Have I mentioned the general apathy I generally get when I talk about this stuff?
Its odd. Usually people are all for massive carnage with thousands of people dying for little or no reason. But if you mentioned Russia is like their brains shut down.
Apparently Russia didnt exist prior to 1917.

yeah I know, but theres millions-the three Roman Civil Wars, the Kroean War....

Have I mentioned the general apathy I generally get when I talk about this stuff?
Its odd. Usually people are all for massive carnage with thousands of people dying for little or no reason. But if you mentioned Russia is like their brains shut down.
Apparently Russia didnt exist prior to 1917.

That does seem odd. I was going to suggest some tongue-in-cheek arguing points but my brain is shut down at the moment. Maybe later. Remember, though, people here like to fight, regardless of whether the issue has any meaning. Oh, and polls help a lot, too. I personally become very moth-like when the flame of a poll is nearby.

If you’re British (& commonwealth), French, German or Russian this is going to sound weird. But I believe the rest of the world seems to have little interest or know much about The Great War, War To End All Wars, WW1, etc. I was talking to some American lassie and I asked her what she knew about the WW1, this was on Armistice Day. And she knew virtually nothing about it and believed Veterans Day was for Vietnam. Much more emphasis seems to go on WW2, which, although did change the world, not as much as WW1.

If you’re British (& commonwealth), French, German or Russian this is going to sound weird. But I believe the rest of the world seems to have little interest or know much about The Great War, War To End All Wars, WW1, etc. I was talking to some American lassie and I asked her what she knew about the WW1, this was on Armistice Day. And she knew virtually nothing about it and believed Veterans Day was for Vietnam. Much more emphasis seems to go on WW2, which, although did change the world, not as much as WW1.

(Huzzah for the great historical British-Bias! No offence to any Brits present).


Meh - Britain back then was writing the history. We could afford to push a few wars under the carpet hoping no one will notice

Shit, most folks in the US don't even know about the Whiskey Rebellion or Shay's rebellion and those happend here.

War of 1812. Definitely. Most people don't know it happened.

if think the ignoring of the entire Byzantine civilization is of greater importance

Didn't a couple of Central American nations mix it up militarily over a soccer result a few decades ago?

Meh - Britain back then was writing the history. We could afford to push a few wars under the carpet hoping no one will notice

Like the Bay of Pigs - oh, that was't ours!

finally i can find people who know what the Crimean War is :)

I think alot of Americans have never heard of the War of 1812.

Oh, sure we have. That was the one where Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner beat the nasty British, right?

EDIT: I thought they fixed the friggin' Time Warps.

finally i can find people who know what the Crimean War is :)

I think alot of Americans have never heard of the War of 1812.



George: We're fighting what war now?
Abe: The War of 1812.
George: But its 1814?! ,who's naming our wars now?

I find it odd that a conflict which basically shattered the European political view and changed the face of the world is almost totaly ignored in history books.

This is very much a matter of perspective. While the Crimean War might be completely ignored in America, it is well remembered in the UK, not only for the Charge of the Light Brigade, but also for Florence Nightingale. By contrast, any war fought by America between 1783 and 1917 is virtually unknown in the UK, with the exception of the civil war.

A striking example would be the War of 1812, which Britain actually fought in. Most British people haven't even heard of it because it was completely overshadowed by the Napoleonic wars.

if think the ignoring of the entire Byzantine civilization is of greater importance

I think its a symptom of the same problem.
People use the 'Non-Western' excuse as a reason to shove both Russia and the Eastern Roman Empire aside here and there.
Thus while most everybody knows (at least) OF Waterloo, people think that Borodino was a Flintstones charecter.

This is very much a matter of perspective. While the Crimean War might be completely ignored in America, it is well remembered in the UK, not only for the Charge of the Light Brigade, but also for Florence Nightingale. By contrast, any war fought by America between 1783 and 1917 is virtually unknown in the UK, with the exception of the civil war.

A striking example would be the War of 1812, which Britain actually fought in. Most British people haven't even heard of it because it was completely overshadowed by the Napoleonic wars.

I dont have much experience with British history textbooks, most of ours come from New York, I think :P

But, its not only a question of IF something is remebered, its a question of HOW its remembered to. I read a book (Hell Riders, I think it was) which centered around the Charge, and it noted that British opinion (at the time) was divided in regards to the Charge and its bravery/stupidity/whatever.
Now, in the US at least, people dont seem to remember the stupidity of it, just that those brave chaps in their tights bravely charged the cowardly Ruskies.
And couldnt 1812 be considered part of the Napoleonic Wars? In a way.

The problem is that we have too much history. We've got a couple of thousand years of it, and the last two centuries of it were spread throughout the entire globe. People take a glance at that and just think 'meh, just give me the summary'.

While I know that NS is a fairly well educated little population, I find it interesting that (here in the US, at least) people seem to have a blindspot when it comes to certain events in world history.
The two sore spots that get me the most are the Crimean War and the Taiping Rebellion.
With the Crimean War, some people have HEARD of it at least, but oddly enough the terms 'charge of the light brigade' and 'thin red line' mean little to them. A few can go so far as "Isnt that the one where the British kicked the Russians asses?" (Huzzah for the great historical British-Bias! No offence to any Brits present).
I find it odd that a conflict which basically shattered the European political view and changed the face of the world is almost totaly ignored in history books. And when it IS mentioned there tends to be just a teensy bit of bias (as mentioned) towards the British. I recall one history book giving the Russian casualties as over 800,000, against something like 10,000 British (they mentioned 'other allied casualties' as something like 100,000).

The Taiping Rebellion also kinda gets me. Maybe the Chinese dont like to talk about it, but you would figure a civil war where 20-50 million people died would get SOME mention in the history books at least, since it set the stage for Europe to carve up China and paved the way for the communists to take power in China.
And, like the Crimean War, its a great example of what stupid military leadership can do with a large body of men.

Theres others of course, the Russo-Japanese War is often reduced to Tsushima, the actual contents of the Russian Revolution are rarely explored (much less the western attempts to stop it), the Sino-Japanese Wars (pre-WWII of course) are ignored.
Russian conflicts with the Ottomans and Swedes are almost never mentioned either.

Maybe my college just gave us crappy textbooks, but it seems to be a fairly global trend outside of more focused history books. Hell, even Wells 'forgets' to mention most of this stuff in his 'Outline of History', but one gets the impression that he didnt like Russians or Chinese very much anyway.
It was entertaining though :P

I recommend you read Max Boot: The Savage Wars of Peace.

It discusses, in detail, virtually every American military involvement pre-World War II. If you want to discuss "forgotten" wars, take a look at 200 years of about as anti-isolationist foreign policy you can get, despite the claims of history textbooks, regarding America's involvement in world affairs.

Yes, there are definitely large chunks of history that are missing are not paid due attention for the effect they had (and arguably, still have), which is why history textbooks are hardly the objective observer accounts they are touted to be.

And couldnt 1812 be considered part of the Napoleonic Wars? In a way.

In the same way World War II can be considered part of World War I.

Interestingly, opinion on the Charge of the Light Brigade in the UK is focused almost entirely on the stupidity of it. Maybe that's a cultural point, that in events of heroic stupidity, Americans applaud the heroism whereas the British condemn the stupidity.

Most Americans know of the war of 1812, but they couldnt tell you why or how it happened. Also, many of Americas wars and skirmishes against the native population are ignored, except for the very prominent ones. Also America's war against Spain near the turn of the century is usually ignored unless you've taken journalism and Hearst is covered.

Punic Wars. Albeit, they were a long time ago, but why is it that most people know who Hannibal was but not what country he was from (Carthage) and what the big wars between Carthage and Rome were?

The Hundred Years War is also being vaguely forgotten, although Joan of Arc is still remembered. It's a very strange pattern - to remember 1 person from a war, but not the war itself...

Another forgotten one: The War of the Roses. There were disproportionate peasant casualties to actual soldier casualties in that one, yet it barely gets a mention except in books specifically about Britain.

The Hundred Years War is also being vaguely forgotten, although Joan of Arc is still remembered. It's a very strange pattern - to remember 1 person from a war, but not the war itself...

Another forgotten one: The War of the Roses. There were disproportionate peasant casualties to actual soldier casualties in that one, yet it barely gets a mention except in books specifically about Britain.

I don't think either of these are likely to be forgotten in England. The Battle of Agincourt is a focal point of English Patriotism, for example, and Richard III is a famous (or infamous) figure in English history.

A striking example would be the War of 1812, which Britain actually fought in. Most British people haven't even heard of it because it was completely overshadowed by the Napoleonic wars.

They should remember it. They kicked our asses.

Another forgotten one: The War of the Roses. There were disproportionate peasant casualties to actual soldier casualties in that one, yet it barely gets a mention except in books specifically about Britain.

Well, why would it? It was a war in England between two rich people (and their associated supporters) to decide who was going to be King. One of many such wars during the Middle Ages.

I don't think either of these are likely to be forgotten in England. The Battle of Agincourt is a focal point of English Patriotism, for example, and Richard III is a famous (or infamous) figure in English history.

Speaking of focal points of English patriotism, I've always found the Richard I one a bit odd, seeing as he saw England as a sideshow to his main lands in France, wasn't born there, and only spent about 6 months of his life there.

And then got captured by the Germans, with a ransom that had to be paid by half bankrupting England, and later killed by a kid with a bow and arrow.

Well, why would it? It was a war in England between two rich people (and their associated supporters) to decide who was going to be King. One of many such wars during the Middle Ages.

Agreed. Also, within the context of purely English history, it is one of the better remembered civil wars.

Fewer people remember the 2nd Baron's War, the revolt of 1173-74, or King Stephen's Anarchy. In fact, I would be prepared to bet a significant proportion of english people have not even heard of King Stephen, let alone anything that happened during his reign.

The problem is, these sort of minor wars don't have any impact on people's perceptions. Unless you have studied the period, the real importance of such things as the Taiping Rebellion is more or less overshadowed by more recent, flashier events.

Plus, let's be honest here, many wars don't actually change anything. The Crimea had far greater results politically than anything miltary; in fact, I would say that militarily it was all but completely pointless. The war of 1812 was similar - the only important events were the regularizing of the US-Canada border and the British agreement to stop impressing American sailors (which, by and large, they didn't honour anyway).

Or there's the first and second Rio Plata wars between Argentina and Brazil. Never heard of them? No surprise - they had NO lasting effect. Some wars are just completely unimportant to the greater scheme of human existence.

Agreed. Also, within the context of purely English history, it is one of the better remembered civil wars.

Fewer people remember the 2nd Baron's War, the revolt of 1173-74, or King Stephen's Anarchy. In fact, I would be prepared to bet a significant proportion of english people have not even heard of King Stephen, let alone anything that happened during his reign.

I prefer the Second Baron's War, purely for de Montfort's Parliament (although I still maintain that Edward I's Model Parliament of 1295 is much more significant in the early formation of what a parliament actually was, because it was the King calling it as opposed to a rebel; much in the same way I feel that later issues of Magna Carta were far more significant than the original issue)

As for the Anarchy; I just find the whole thing hilarious. Maud capturing Stephen, then her getting to London but pissing everyone off and getting run out of town, then having to release Stephen.

Then Stephen more or less capturing Maud. And then helping Henry fight...against him. Shakespeare couldn't have written a greater comedy.

Not strictly a war, more of an invited invasion, but nobody in the UK seems to talk about the Glorious Revolution these days, which is odd as it basically destroyed any power the monarchy had left.

While I know that NS is a fairly well educated little population,

I'm sorry but that's simply LOL stupid. No, NSG tends to be an ignorant6 bigoted population.

I find it interesting that (here in the US, at least) people seem to have a blindspot when it comes to certain events in world history.

Not particularly interesting, just sad.

The two sore spots that get me the most are the Crimean War and the Taiping Rebellion.
With the Crimean War, some people have HEARD of it at least, but oddly enough the terms 'charge of the light brigade' and 'thin red line' mean little to them. A few can go so far as "Isnt that the one where the British kicked the Russians asses?" (Huzzah for the great historical British-Bias! No offence to any Brits present).
I find it odd that a conflict which basically shattered the European political view and changed the face of the world is almost totaly ignored in history books. And when it IS mentioned there tends to be just a teensy bit of bias (as mentioned) towards the British. I recall one history book giving the Russian casualties as over 800,000, against something like 10,000 British (they mentioned 'other allied casualties' as something like 100,000).

The Taiping Rebellion also kinda gets me. Maybe the Chinese dont like to talk about it, but you would figure a civil war where 20-50 million people died would get SOME mention in the history books at least, since it set the stage for Europe to carve up China and paved the way for the communists to take power in China.
And, like the Crimean War, its a great example of what stupid military leadership can do with a large body of men.

Theres others of course, the Russo-Japanese War is often reduced to Tsushima, the actual contents of the Russian Revolution are rarely explored (much less the western attempts to stop it), the Sino-Japanese Wars (pre-WWII of course) are ignored.
Russian conflicts with the Ottomans and Swedes are almost never mentioned either.

Maybe my college just gave us crappy textbooks, but it seems to be a fairly global trend outside of more focused history books. Hell, even Wells 'forgets' to mention most of this stuff in his 'Outline of History', but one gets the impression that he didnt like Russians or Chinese very much anyway.
It was entertaining though :P
My personal fave of tghe ones that get ignored is the 2nd Russo-Japanese war (http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/nomonhan.aspx), might well have changed the face of WWII...


The War of Jenkins' Ear. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins'_Ear) It has a much better name, too.

Over-rated as an "unheard of" war, because of it's name in particular, but also becaus all the history geek types know it as being the stupid unknown war, along with the Soccer war you mentioned.


They should remember it. They kicked our asses.

Err... no. Rather than retreading this debate, please consult one of the many threads it been thrashed over in. If you're too lazy to do so, wel then f-off and forget about it.

As for the Anarchy; I just find the whole thing hilarious. Maud capturing Stephen, then her getting to London but pissing everyone off and getting run out of town, then having to release Stephen.

Then Stephen more or less capturing Maud. And then helping Henry fight...against him. Shakespeare couldn't have written a greater comedy.

My favourite story from the Anarchy is of King Stephen and William Marshall. I assume you must know it already, but I'll clarify what I mean anyway.

During the war with Maud, one of Stephen's nobles, John Marshall, switched sides, so Stephen beseiged his castle and took his 7-year-old son William as hostage. He threatened to hang the boy outside the castle gates unless John surrendered.

John replied "I still have the hammer and the anvil with which to forge still more and better sons!" and refused to surrender.

The nobles wanted to put William in a catapult and fire him over the castle walls, but Stephen saw the boy playing with a javelin borrowed from one of the soldiers, and couldn't bring himself to do it.

His father's claim was proven unlikely when William Marshall later became one of the most famous knights in medieval history.

My favourite story from the Anarchy is of King Stephen and William Marshall. I assume you must know it already, but I'll clarify what I mean anyway.

During the war with Maud, one of Stephen's nobles, John Marshall, switched sides, so Stephen beseiged his castle and took his 7-year-old son William as hostage. He threatened to hang the boy outside the castle gates unless John surrendered.

John replied "I still have the hammer and the anvil with which to forge still more and better sons!" and refused to surrender.

The nobles wanted to put William in a catapult and fire him over the castle walls, but Stephen saw the boy playing with a javelin borrowed from one of the soldiers, and couldn't bring himself to do it.

His father's claim was proven unlikely when William Marshall later became one of the most famous knights in medieval history.

And by the time he was dead when anybody in Europe mentioned the Marshall, everybody knew who they meant. Pretty impressive.

Didn't a couple of Central American nations mix it up militarily over a soccer result a few decades ago?

Yes. The Football War. El Salvador and Honduras, IIRC.

I nominate the Anglo-Zanzibar War. It's not that famous, despite it's claim to be the shortest war in recorded history...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War

Yes. The Football War. El Salvador and Honduras, IIRC.

Indeed.

Well, the football was just that final drop. There had been tensions for a long while. I listened to a very interesting programme on the radio about it a few months ago, but my brain is like a dried up sponge. :(

I nominate the Anglo-Zanzibar War. It's not that famous, despite it's claim to be the shortest war in recorded history...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War

Not much of a war though, was it? :P

Two "wars" I would like to nominate are Shaba I (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+zr0186)) and Shaba II (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+zr0187)). More information can be found here (http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/odom2/odom2.asp) and here (in French, though) (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauvetage_de_Kolwezi).

Another forgotten one: The War of the Roses. There were disproportionate peasant casualties to actual soldier casualties in that one, yet it barely gets a mention except in books specifically about Britain.
Not forgotten!

If you went to Leeds Fest, you'd have seen the Lancastrians (*spits*) and Yorkshiretypes (*slightly cheers, a bit*) fighting it out with a whole raft of hilarious pranks and insulting rhymes.

The one where we swapped the occupants two Lancastrians' identical, adjacent tents around in the night was a classic.

What about the Nigerian Civil War?

anyone remember the Battle of Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jersey)?

(not quite sure how this wiki article thinks it was part of the american war for independence, it was the french invading for their own ends and just happened to occur while the french were also helping the americans. meh.)

Not strictly a war, more of an invited invasion, but nobody in the UK seems to talk about the Glorious Revolution these days, which is odd as it basically destroyed any power the monarchy had left.
's true that. Every time I read about it I feel like i'm uncovering a conspiracy that's being deliberately kept from the public.

's true that. Every time I read about it I feel like i'm uncovering a conspiracy that's being deliberately kept from the public.

Not really. Although the revolution itself wasn't really a war, it set off the Jacobite uprisings which are quite well known, and as a whole they can be considered the same conflict. Certainly, the Battle of Culloden is one of the most well known battles in British history.

Last year, I watched the excellent Battlefield Britain series with Peter Snow, and it featured both Culloden and the Battle of the Boyne, which has had long lasting repercussions in Northern Ireland even into modern times.

Last year, I watched the excellent Battlefield Britain series with Peter Snow, and it featured both Culloden and the Battle of the Boyne, which has had long lasting repercussions in Northern Ireland even into modern times.

Yes, but Northern Irish politics is a joke, so don't worry about that.

Shit, most folks in the US don't even know about the Whiskey Rebellion or Shay's rebellion and those happend here.

And, don't forget the war between Michigan and Ohio over who got possesion of Toledo.

No, seriously! Michigan got the Upper Peninsula as a consolation prize:-)

Reffering to the Ottoman Empire in WW1 as Turkey ARGGHHH!!!
That and almost labeling Russia as a Central Power in WW1....
oh yeah, and stating U-Boats as completely useless war machines....

damn education system :p

And, don't forget the war between Michigan and Ohio over who got possesion of Toledo.

No, seriously! Michigan got the Upper Peninsula as a consolation prize:-)

Yeah...we got the better end of the deal, methinks.

War of 1812. Definitely. Most people don't know it happened.

Most Americans and Canadians do, largely because of how important it was in shaping both nations identities.

Most Americans and Canadians do, largely because of how important it was in shaping both nations identities.

Well, I was generally meaning the UK.

I mean, I didn't know of it until just a few years ago despite having a huge interest in history. Everything about the period is, understandably, tied up with the Napoleonic Wars.

Well, I was generally meaning the UK.

I mean, I didn't know of it until just a few years ago despite having a huge interest in history. Everything about the period is, understandably, tied up with the Napoleonic Wars.

Do I dare venture a jab at UK nationalism and quote Napoleon's opinion of the British against certain other nations of a more easterly nature?
...
*runs for it*

People think I'm joking when I bring up the Mexican American War. Most people don't know that's where California (the state I live in) came from.

Do I dare venture a jab at UK nationalism and quote Napoleon's opinion of the British against certain other nations of a more easterly nature?
...
*runs for it*

What was it?

Something about being shitey imperialistic bastards of the day, I hope? :p

Err... no. Rather than retreading this debate, please consult one of the many threads it been thrashed over in. If you're too lazy to do so, wel then f-off and forget about it.

I participated in many of those threads. Just because it ended in a draw doesn't mean that the British didn't beat up the U.S. Or did the British not destroy the U.S. capital in your world?

What was it?

Something about being shitey imperialistic bastards of the day, I hope? :p

Something along the lines of:
"The British won a battle at Waterloo, the Russians won a war at Borodino"
I seem to recall that he made some rather unpleasant remarks about the British in general as well, something along the lines of 'They are a nation of shopkeepers'.
Apparently he rather liked the Ruskies, since he said he wished he had their troops under his command.

Scary thought, eh? Russian armies with competent leaders tend to do quite well.

I participated in many of those threads. Just because it ended in a draw doesn't mean that the British didn't beat up the U.S. Or did the British not destroy the U.S. capital in your world?

I seem to recall that the Canadian capitol didnt fare too well either.

Ah well, like 1812 itself, such arguements are bound to end in a draw.

The US got its national anthem out of that war though, so its not all that bad ;)

The War Nobody Watched (http://www.exile.ru/2003-November-13/war_nerd.html)

I have often wondered why the following three wars are very rarly mentioned:
Schleswig-Holstein Conflict (1864)
Austro-Purssian War (1866)
Franco-Prussian Wat (1870)

I have never head of any of them once at school. They may not be forgotten in university history or France and Germany but in Canada we never even hear about them, and they were pretty important. Without them Germany wouldnt have become united in 1871 and then WWI wouldnt have happened.

PS:NONE I repeat NONE of my teachers have ever even mentioned the Napoleonic Wars. They were pretty damn important to world history if you ask me.

PS:NONE I repeat NONE of my teachers have ever even mentioned the Napoleonic Wars. They were pretty damn important to world history if you ask me.

Ive noticed this to.
I imagine we'll hear about them this year in Western Civ. II, but this is a college level class.
Kids in the US dont learn about Napoleon, or European history in general up until WWI (although 1918-1939 is generally skipped outside of a generalized 'Europe sucked during this period' statement).

America is the worst when it comes to wars. Even our own. We're so quick to start our own but most of us dont know over half we've been in, to most americans it goes, Revolutionary war- Civil war, World War two, Vietnam, Iraq. Missing like 11 others... Not to mention international wars, Or other fronts in ww2 that arent the western front. You mention Russian front or Italian campiang or Japan vs China and they look at you like your the one whos crazy. If you don't know our history your doomed to repeat it and America is the most prime example of that.

The two sore spots that get me the most are the Crimean War and the Taiping Rebellion.

Russian conflicts with the Ottomans and Swedes are almost never mentioned either.


Here in Italy, the Krimean War is studied mainly because Piedmont (The Kingdom of Sardinia) partecipated: it was a successful attempt at gaining respect and sympathy of the european powers for the Piedmontese efforts towards the unification of Italy.

The Taiping Rebellion is often overlooked, while the Opium wars are quoted as example of the european imperialism; and the Boxers Rebellion is often mentioned, because Italy was involved, too.

The Russian conflicts with Ottomans, Swedes and even back to Aleksandr Nevskij are studied. The Russian Revolution is studied also, but no emphasis is put on the Russian Civil War - I think mainly because Italy also intervened in favour of the tsarist reaction.

I have often wondered why the following three wars are very rarly mentioned:
Schleswig-Holstein Conflict (1864)
Austro-Purssian War (1866)
Franco-Prussian Wat (1870)



In Italy they're held in highest importance: here, they're regarder as part of the italian Independence Wars, because the Kingdom of Italy intervened and they helped the decadence of Austria-Hungary, thus allowing Italy to begin annexing the north-eastern part of the country (Venice).

I seem to recall that the Canadian capitol didnt fare too well either.

I don't think you'll find many British people care what happened to an obscure bunch of log cabins in Canada. It's not as if it was London.

Maybe another reason the war of 1812 is mostly ignored in the UK is because we didn't win it outright. There have been so many wars in the last 1000 years, might as well remember the ones we won, and brush stuff like the War of Jenkins' Ear under the carpet.

Even the Hundred Years War is only reembered for the good bits. I've seen documentaries on it that go "Sluys! Crecy! Poitiers! Agincourt! Then, uh, it ended a bit later..."

The Third Punic War: There's a reason why there is almost no evidence left of the Carthage Empire. "Cartago delenda est".

Spanish/American War: The supposed sinking of the U.S.S Maine that was in port at the Gulf of Tonk- err I mean Havana. Mention Rough Riders and everyone will assume you're talking about rap.

Remember the Alamo! But not the war it was involed in! :D

America is the worst when it comes to wars. Even our own. We're so quick to start our own but most of us dont know over half we've been in, to most americans it goes, Revolutionary war- Civil war, World War two, Vietnam, Iraq. Missing like 11 others... Not to mention international wars, Or other fronts in ww2 that arent the western front. You mention Russian front or Italian campiang or Japan vs China and they look at you like your the one whos crazy. If you don't know our history your doomed to repeat it and America is the most prime example of that.

Indeed, although the Pacific theatre DOES seem to get a lot of attention on the History Channel. I think the reason people dislike it is because it didnt really have any epic tank battles, and carrier combat is rather boring in terms of blood and explosions.
But yes, people often underestimate the importance of the Eastern Front, Africa and SE Asia/China.

I don't think you'll find many British people care what happened to an obscure bunch of log cabins in Canada. It's not as if it was London.

Maybe another reason the war of 1812 is mostly ignored in the UK is because we didn't win it outright. There have been so many wars in the last 1000 years, might as well remember the ones we won, and brush stuff like the War of Jenkins' Ear under the carpet.

Even the Hundred Years War is only reembered for the good bits. I've seen documentaries on it that go "Sluys! Crecy! Poitiers! Agincourt! Then, uh, it ended a bit later..."

I understood that one of the main reasons the British burned DC instead of simply capturing it was in retaliation for burning the Canadian capitol. Was it not one of those things you 'did not do' back in the early 1800's, burning peoples capitols down?

In regards to the second part, I am in full agreement. Do they study the Baltic or Pacific theatres of the Crimean War in the UK? The Siege of Petropalovosk?
600 Ruskies with 6 cannons against a good-sized (for the Pacific, anyway) fleet of French and British. Ruskies won :P

Here in Italy, the Krimean War is studied mainly because Piedmont (The Kingdom of Sardinia) partecipated: it was a successful attempt at gaining respect and sympathy of the european powers for the Piedmontese efforts towards the unification of Italy.

The Taiping Rebellion is often overlooked, while the Opium wars are quoted as example of the european imperialism; and the Boxers Rebellion is often mentioned, because Italy was involved, too.

The Russian conflicts with Ottomans, Swedes and even back to Aleksandr Nevskij are studied. The Russian Revolution is studied also, but no emphasis is put on the Russian Civil War - I think mainly because Italy also intervened in favour of the tsarist reaction.

I kinda wish I lived in Italy now. Education and really good ice cream, a lovely combination ;)

I understood that one of the main reasons the British burned DC instead of simply capturing it was in retaliation for burning the Canadian capitol. Was it not one of those things you 'did not do' back in the early 1800's, burning peoples capitols down?

Oh yes, it was originally in retaliation. What I'm saying is, nowadays British people might find it amusing that D.C. was burnt down, but don't consider it a great national humiliation that some city in Canada got toasted.

Oh yes, it was originally in retaliation. What I'm saying is, nowadays British people might find it amusing that D.C. was burnt down, but don't consider it a great national humiliation that some city in Canada got toasted.

I dont think many people in the US consider it a great national humiliation either. If you tell your average US citizen that the capitol was burned down a hundred years ago, they would most likely shrug and say, "Yeah? Well, Im glad we rebuilt it." or something along those lines.
'Sides, we've taken out our fair share of capitols since then, so I think were even now :p

I dont think many people in the US consider it a great national humiliation either. If you tell your average US citizen that the capitol was burned down a hundred years ago, they would most likely shrug and say, "Yeah? Well, Im glad we rebuilt it." or something along those lines.
'Sides, we've taken out our fair share of capitols since then, so I think were even now :p

Well, I don't think the average person takes anything that happened hundreds of years ago as a source of national humiliation. Tell some British person that the British were crushed at New Orleans in 1815, and they probably won't care (in fact, given the British penchant for national self-depreciation, they'd probably find it funny). But in terms of the internet one-upmanship that, for some reason the War of 1812 inspires, these seem to be the more sensitive issues that each side tries to slap the other in the face with.

The Korean War and the War of 1812 are among the most forgotten wars which is really sad really. I love to study these wars.

Well, I don't think the average person takes anything that happened hundreds of years ago as a source of national humiliation. Tell some British person that the British were crushed at New Orleans in 1815, and they probably won't care. But in terms of the internet one-upmanship that, for some reason the War of 1812 inspires, these seem to be the more sensitive issues that each side tries to slap the other in the face with.

We keep switching back and forth between modern and 19th century perspective >_>

Anyway, yes, I imagine back then certain events would no doubt be issues of national pride. Fourtunatly we managed to overcome those in time to fight Nazis and such.

Bosnia.

It was only a decade or so, and I was only a wee little kid, but I don't know anything about this conflict other than its name. That and something about Christians killing Muslims in mass.

As a matter of fact anything that goes on in the Balkans is a mystery to me.

War of 1812. Definitely. Most people don't know it happened.

We spent a while on it in my history class. It's AP US history.

The War of Jenkins' Ear. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins'_Ear) It has a much better name, too.

I remember that that was briefly mentioned in my history textbook...

We just spent several class periods on the Spanish-American War as well. We just had our test on 1890-1916.

Fourtunatly we managed to overcome those in time to fight Nazis and such.

We even made friends with the French.

There was some show on TV recently, where some old bigot was complaining about the lack of appreciation of English culture and history among modern English people. He went round interviewing people in the street and asking them about englishness and so on. The question I remember is "Who are the traditional enemies of the English?" The obvious answer is France, and maybe Scotland, but everyone was saying 'Germany' or 'Iraq'. The sad part is, they still hate the French, they just can't remember why.

We even made friends with the French.

There was some show on TV recently, where some old bigot was complaining about the lack of appreciation of English culture and history among modern English people. He went round interviewing people in the street and asking them about englishness and so on. The question I remember is "Who are the traditional enemies of the English?" The obvious answer is France, and maybe Scotland, but everyone was saying 'Germany' or 'Iraq'. The sad part is, they still hate the French, they just can't remember why.

Dont forget the Ruskies, it seems (to me, at least) that the British like them even less than the French.

Dont forget the Ruskies, it seems (to me, at least) that the British like them even less than the French.

Who do the Brits like?

Who do the Brits like?

No one :D

Who do the Brits like?
Nobody outside people within a ten-or-so mile radius of their house. And even then, it's a bit touch and go.

Franco-Prussian Wat (1870)
The invention of high-explosive shells came from this, therefore dooming millions of people in the Great War. Argh.

We spent a while on it in my history class. It's AP US history.

What does AP stand for?

The invention of high-explosive shells came from this, therefore dooming millions of people in the Great War. Argh.

Again, it was a French conspiracy! ;)

Again, it was a French conspiracy! ;)
Fuckin' French!

We haven't kicked their arses in about 200 years, I say it's time to do it again!

(note - may be a joke)

What does AP stand for?
Argh, Pirhanas!

Fuckin' French!

We haven't kicked their arses in about 200 years, I say it's time to do it again!

(note - may be a joke)

The whole German state was just a French attempt to get at the English ;)

The question is.. why is the orginal poster expecting to hear about these events in a college class.. I dunno about you people, and perhaps I can't speak for the country as a whole as every state has its own education system. But I learned about those events in middle and high school. History is littered with so called "turning points" ... it is impossible to know them all by heart.. and the two aforementioned events while significant themselves can be overshadowed a hundred times over by any number of wars or conflicts....

Personally I'd be more concered (as it seems most US educators are) with making sure students know what a World War is.

With the exception of the Revolutionary France/Napoleonic Wars and the American Revolution, no-one ever seems to remember the many major conflicts of the 18th Century (which is a shame because many of them are very interesting indeed):

The War of the Spanish Succession (1701 - 1714): Britain, Holland, Austria, Portugal, Savoy-Piedmont, Prussia and the Catalonians vs France, Bavaria and the rest of Spain.

The Great Northern War (1700 - 1721): Russia, Denmark, Poland (nominally), Saxony vs Sweden.

The War of the Polish Succession (1733 -1738): Austria, Russia, Prussia, Saxony vs France

The War of the Austrian Succession (1741 - 1748): Prussia, Spain, France, Bavaria vs Britain, Austria, Saxony, Holland

The Seven Years War (1756 - 1763): Prussia, Britain, Portugal, Brunswick vs Austria, France, Russia, Spain, Saxony, Sardinia, Sweden

First Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774) and its sequel, the Second Russo-Turkish War (1787–1792): Russia and Austria vs Ottoman Turkey

With the exception of the Revolutionary France/Napoleonic Wars and the American Revolution, no-one ever seems to remember the many major conflicts of the 18th Century (which is a shame because many of them are very interesting indeed):

The War of the Spanish Succession (1701 - 1714): Britain, Holland, Austria, Portugal, Savoy-Piedmont, Prussia and the Catalonians vs France, Bavaria and the rest of Spain.

Heard of it. Haven't studied it that much but I have heard of it.

The Great Northern War (1700 - 1721): Russia, Denmark, Poland (nominally), Saxony vs Sweden.

Sweden bit off more than it can chew :D

The War of the Polish Succession (1733 -1738): Austria, Russia, Prussia, Saxony vs France

Hehe. Typical France :D

The War of the Austrian Succession (1741 - 1748): Prussia, Spain, France, Bavaria vs Britain, Austria, Saxony, Holland

And the winner is?

The Seven Years War (1756 - 1763): Prussia, Britain, Portugal, Brunswick vs Austria, France, Russia, Spain, Saxony, Sardinia, Sweden

This is NOT a forgotten war. We here in America actually study this in our history classes. Of course, it focuses more on the colonial theater of war instead of Europe but in truth, it is not at all forgotten.

First Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774) and its sequel, the Second Russo-Turkish War (1787–1792): Russia and Austria vs Ottoman Turkey

an interesting one to look at.

While I know that NS is a fairly well educated little population, I find it interesting that (here in the US, at least) people seem to have a blindspot when it comes to certain events in world history.
The two sore spots that get me the most are the Crimean War and the Taiping Rebellion.
With the Crimean War, some people have HEARD of it at least, but oddly enough the terms 'charge of the light brigade' and 'thin red line' mean little to them. A few can go so far as "Isnt that the one where the British kicked the Russians asses?" (Huzzah for the great historical British-Bias! No offence to any Brits present).
I find it odd that a conflict which basically shattered the European political view and changed the face of the world is almost totaly ignored in history books. And when it IS mentioned there tends to be just a teensy bit of bias (as mentioned) towards the British. I recall one history book giving the Russian casualties as over 800,000, against something like 10,000 British (they mentioned 'other allied casualties' as something like 100,000).

The Taiping Rebellion also kinda gets me. Maybe the Chinese dont like to talk about it, but you would figure a civil war where 20-50 million people died would get SOME mention in the history books at least, since it set the stage for Europe to carve up China and paved the way for the communists to take power in China.
And, like the Crimean War, its a great example of what stupid military leadership can do with a large body of men.

Theres others of course, the Russo-Japanese War is often reduced to Tsushima, the actual contents of the Russian Revolution are rarely explored (much less the western attempts to stop it), the Sino-Japanese Wars (pre-WWII of course) are ignored.
Russian conflicts with the Ottomans and Swedes are almost never mentioned either.

Maybe my college just gave us crappy textbooks, but it seems to be a fairly global trend outside of more focused history books. Hell, even Wells 'forgets' to mention most of this stuff in his 'Outline of History', but one gets the impression that he didnt like Russians or Chinese very much anyway.
It was entertaining though :P

Two words: Children's Crusade

Two words: Children's Crusade

We learned about that one in my medieval history class during High School. It was a rather minor event though, wasnt it? I mean, aside for the parents of course.
I was focusing more on wars and events that had major effects on the entire world, but are ignored for various reasons (IE: 'Non Western' participants.)

I think people should only learn the basic history in school. If they're interested in battles and wars, they have the internet. It's pretty useless trying to educate every single turning point in history. Besides, the political aspect of history is more important than some resulting battles anyway.

Speaking of focal points of English patriotism, I've always found the Richard I one a bit odd, seeing as he saw England as a sideshow to his main lands in France, wasn't born there, and only spent about 6 months of his life there.

And then got captured by the Germans, with a ransom that had to be paid by half bankrupting England, and later killed by a kid with a bow and arrow.

Not to mention the fact that he bled the country white with taxes to support an idiotic Crusade. He was also responsible for what were, even by medieval standards, some pretty nasty massacres.

Something along the lines of:
"The British won a battle at Waterloo, the Russians won a war at Borodino"


An interesting remark from the man who lost a war at both.


I seem to recall that he made some rather unpleasant remarks about the British in general as well, something along the lines of 'They are a nation of shopkeepers'.

That was a compliment, believe it or not. A reference to Adam Smith's claim that ruling the world was a task suited to 'a nation of shopkeepers'.

Here's a highly recommended book on one "forgotten" war.

http://www.andrewlownie.co.uk/books/edwards.robert/death.shtml

I have rarely seen such detailed, gripping and neutral analysis of the reasons and complications of the Winter War... and of all things, it's written by a foreigner!

A few excerpts:

http://irc-galleria.net/view.php?nick=_pulu_&image_id=53365188

http://irc-galleria.net/view.php?nick=_pulu_&image_id=53366787

Joona

What does AP stand for?

Advanced Placement. It means that we take the course and if we do well enough on the exam at the end of the year we can get up to 6 credit hours for college in US History. (I'm taking four other such classes, as well.)

Not strictly a war, more of an invited invasion, but nobody in the UK seems to talk about the Glorious Revolution these days, which is odd as it basically destroyed any power the monarchy had left.It was mentioned in a television series about the history of the monarchy last year...

And by the time he was dead when anybody in Europe mentioned the Marshall, everybody knew who they meant. Pretty impressive.

And there's a plausible theory that he was the inspiration for the addition of 'Sir Lancelot' to the Arthurian stories that were being written in France around then...

The Seven Years War (1756 - 1763): Prussia, Britain, Portugal, Brunswick vs Austria, France, Russia, Spain, Saxony, Sardinia, Sweden

This war is well remembered, at least by the British and Americans, for the American theatre, which is known as the 'French and Indian War'.

It should be well known for the novel and (much) later film 'Last of the Mohicans' which dramatises events surrounding one of the battles. For some reason I love that film, even though it portrays the British as militarily ineffective - despite all the battle scenes, I don't think the British do anything except receive tomahawks to the face.


Also, someone mentioned the Children's Crusade. I think that should be vetoed as (a) It wasn't a war, and (b) It's not even certain that it actually happened.

Heard of it. Haven't studied it that much but I have heard of it.

The War of the Spanish Succession should be better remembered than it is because it essentially marked Britain's transformation into one of the Great Powers. It also led to Austrian dominance in Italy for 150 years.

Sweden bit off more than it can chew :D

Surprisingly, they did quite well until 1709. They swiftly knocked Denmark out of the war, thrashed the Russians at Narva, romped around Poland until 1706 and then proceeded to pillage Saxony. Charles XII was truly one of the great military leaders of the age and probably at least equal to his more famous contemporaries, the Duke of Marlborough and Eugene of Savoy. However, he made a fundamental mistake in invading Russia in 1708/1709: the Russians conducted their usual retreat-and-burn-everything policy so Charles got stuck in the Ukraine without supplies or allies in the middle of one of coldest winters on record. Then Peter the Great set his massive, reformed army on Charles, resulting in the Swedish defeat at Poltava. Charles had to flee to Ottoman territory (where he remained until 1714) and Peter and his allies were essentially free to break up the (considerable) Swedish Empire amongst themselves.

And the winner is?

The War of the Austrian Succession occured when the Prussians (under their new king Frederick II, later to be known as Frederick the Great) seized Silesia from the Austrians. Silesia happened to be the richest province of the Austrian Monarchy. Prussia was able to hold onto Silesia and in doing so turned themselves from a minor northern German power into one of the major players in Europe.

This is NOT a forgotten war. We here in America actually study this in our history classes. Of course, it focuses more on the colonial theater of war instead of Europe but in truth, it is not at all forgotten.

The European theatre (which is by far the most interesting) is neglected. It is absolutely amazing that Prussia (virtually alone: Britain funded a mercenary army but it was mostly to secure Hanover from the French) was able to survive the combined onslaught of Austria, France and Russia and keep its Silesian province. It is also notable in that this was the first time that Russian forces entered Berlin (they only did so briefly: it was a Cossack raiding party and they stayed only for a few hours).

an interesting one to look at.

Certainly, especially with regards to Polish history. Both wars essentially led to the partition of Poland between Austria, Prussia and Russia and its elimination from the map of Europe for over a hundred years. Some very interesting campaigns too.

Meh - Britain back then was writing the history. We could afford to push a few wars under the carpet hoping no one will notice

Not to mention the Boer War.. Famous for starting an industry in concentration camps..

The European theatre (which is by far the most interesting) is neglected. It is absolutely amazing that Prussia (virtually alone: Britain funded a mercenary army but it was mostly to secure Hanover from the French) was able to survive the combined onslaught of Austria, France and Russia and keep its Silesian province. It is also notable in that this was the first time that Russian forces entered Berlin (they only did so briefly: it was a Cossack raiding party and they stayed only for a few hours).

In reality, it is not at all surprising that the Prussians survived the onslaught. They were terrific fighters and they knew how to fight against superior numbers. Actually the Germans do do a marvelous job in fighting numerically superior numbers. Tactics on the other hand is what cost them a few times.

Certainly, especially with regards to Polish history. Both wars essentially led to the partition of Poland between Austria, Prussia and Russia and its elimination from the map of Europe for over a hundred years. Some very interesting campaigns too.

yep.

Not to mention the Boer War.. Famous for starting an industry in concentration camps..

Nope. That's one invention we can happily let the French take the credit for. They beat us to it by about 80 years. (In Algeria in the 1830s, in case anyone is wondering.)

The War of Jenkins' Ear. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins'_Ear) It has a much better name, too.
Ah yes, NS is so cool, i remember the last time one of these was done and that sprung up.
Memories the memories.:)
-----------------------
My Great Great Great Great Grand Pappy was at Balaclava.

War of 1812. Definitely. Most people don't know it happened.

Americans tend to conveniently forget this, after the razing of their capital to the ground...

Americans tend to conveniently forget this, after the razing of their capital to the ground...

Which was in response to York (Present day Toronto) being burned down. People conveniently forget that.

Oh and another thing, the war was a draw. Probably the biggest reason why no one remembers that outside of the Battle of New Orleans.

Which was in response to York (Present day Toronto) being burned down. People conveniently forget that.

We've been through this once already in this thread. People don't conveniently forget it. It's just too insignificant an event to bother anyone.

In a drawn war, both sides win and lose battles, but having your capital city burned down is a major slap in the face. But Toronto isn't the capital of the UK.

We've been through this once already in this thread. People don't conveniently forget it. It's just too insignificant an event to bother anyone.

In a drawn war, both sides win and lose battles, but having your capital city burned down is a major slap in the face. But Toronto isn't the capital of the UK.

No it was just a nice little town of some economic importance. The Capital Building, the White House, and the naval yard was all that was truly burned in 1814. The whole town was not burned. York was burnt down.

No it was just a nice little town of some economic importance. The Capital Building, the White House, and the naval yard was all that was truly burned in 1814. The whole town was not burned. York was burnt down.

The point is, it wasn't London, so it's not quite the same. Also, don't forget the Library of Congress, the Treasury, etc. Basically, all the public buildings. They were good enough not to burn anyone's house down.

Shit, most folks in the US don't even know about the Whiskey Rebellion or Shay's rebellion and those happend here.

And considering that Shay's rebellion was possibly one of the most imporant events in our history(Albeit somewhat small in scale), it is rather sad that it gets only a small excerpt in the history texts.

Anyway, if we're talking obscure anglo-american conflicts, the War of 1812 doesn't even top the list.

There was the 1859 Pig War. Its casualties: A Pig.

I think we lost that one, because it was our Pig.

The point is, it wasn't London, so it's not quite the same. Also, don't forget the Library of Congress, the Treasury, etc. Basically, all the public buildings. They were good enough not to burn anyone's house down.

No they just could not afford to stay there. Their operation at baltimore failed so they could not do anything else to it. Not to mention, it was kind of hard to burn down the buildings. The White House pretty much was still standing after the fire was put out.

Having your capital burned is not the end of the war. Yea it was an embarrassment, I'll grant you that however, we did not lose the war there nor did the Brits win the war there.

We can continue to hash this out if you like the point remains. More damage was done with York than it was with D.C.

Yeah, the Taiping rebellion gets me. IIRC it is the single greatest loss of human life in one incident, ever. Yet nobody knows or gives a damn.

Yeah, the Taiping rebellion gets me. IIRC it is the single greatest loss of human life in one incident, ever. Yet nobody knows or gives a damn.

Thats because only yellow people died. Had any whites been killed, we would be much more aware.

Afghanistan?

While I know that NS is a fairly well educated little population, I find it interesting that (here in the US, at least) people seem to have a blindspot when it comes to certain events in world history.
The two sore spots that get me the most are the Crimean War and the Taiping Rebellion.
With the Crimean War, some people have HEARD of it at least, but oddly enough the terms 'charge of the light brigade' and 'thin red line' mean little to them. A few can go so far as "Isnt that the one where the British kicked the Russians asses?" (Huzzah for the great historical British-Bias! No offence to any Brits present).
I find it odd that a conflict which basically shattered the European political view and changed the face of the world is almost totaly ignored in history books. And when it IS mentioned there tends to be just a teensy bit of bias (as mentioned) towards the British. I recall one history book giving the Russian casualties as over 800,000, against something like 10,000 British (they mentioned 'other allied casualties' as something like 100,000).

The Taiping Rebellion also kinda gets me. Maybe the Chinese dont like to talk about it, but you would figure a civil war where 20-50 million people died would get SOME mention in the history books at least, since it set the stage for Europe to carve up China and paved the way for the communists to take power in China.
And, like the Crimean War, its a great example of what stupid military leadership can do with a large body of men.

Theres others of course, the Russo-Japanese War is often reduced to Tsushima, the actual contents of the Russian Revolution are rarely explored (much less the western attempts to stop it), the Sino-Japanese Wars (pre-WWII of course) are ignored.
Russian conflicts with the Ottomans and Swedes are almost never mentioned either.

Maybe my college just gave us crappy textbooks, but it seems to be a fairly global trend outside of more focused history books. Hell, even Wells 'forgets' to mention most of this stuff in his 'Outline of History', but one gets the impression that he didnt like Russians or Chinese very much anyway.
It was entertaining though :P

I don't know any.

Yeah, the Taiping rebellion gets me. IIRC it is the single greatest loss of human life in one incident, ever. Yet nobody knows or gives a damn.

Indeed, I cant tell you how many times Ive had the following conversation (approximatly, of course):
Me: So, do you know what the Taiping rebellion was?
Them: No
Me: It was a sort of religious conflict in China (at this point their face kind of shuts down) somewhere between 20-50,000,000 people died.
Them: Oh, thats horrible.
(Subject change)

Having your capital burned is not the end of the war. Yea it was an embarrassment, I'll grant you that however, we did not lose the war there nor did the Brits win the war there.

We can continue to hash this out if you like the point remains. More damage was done with York than it was with D.C.

Nothing needs hashing out. I'm not trying to suggest the war was anything other than a stalemate, nor that the burning of DC was any kind of strategic victory.

All I'm saying is that when some random person goes "Ha, we burnt down DC!", using "Well we burnt down some random town in Canada, so there!" as a retort, doesn't have quite the same impact. How much damage was done to each is irrelevent. Towns get blown up and burnt down all the time in war, but unless it's your capital it's hardly worth the mention.

whatever wars revolved around the ottoman empire seem to be largely ignored by the british school system. or anything to do with the ottoman empire to be honest. i've always been fascinated by this mysterious entity run by the strange people called ottomans. it's as if the whole thing was just brushed under the carpet as an embarrassment or something. of course, i know a bit about it now, but only through my own research, which has been half-hearted at best.

Nothing needs hashing out. I'm not trying to suggest the war was anything other than a stalemate, nor that the burning of DC was any kind of strategic victory.

All I'm saying is that when some random person goes "Ha, we burnt down DC!", using "Well we burnt down some random town in Canada, so there!" as a retort, doesn't have quite the same impact. How much damage was done to each is irrelevent. Towns get blown up and burnt down all the time in war, but unless it's your capital it's hardly worth the mention.

Well since government functions really was not totally interrupted, it did not matter if we lost the capital or not. We lost Philadelphia during the Revolutionary War and it did nothing. Heck, Lancaster PA was the capital for one day :D

Oh and another thing, the war was a draw. Probably the biggest reason why no one remembers that outside of the Battle of New Orleans.

The same kind of 'draw' as Vietnam.
As US author Stephen Jay Gould observed, US history books might call 1812-1815 a draw, but anyone can see you lost. Your navy did okay though.
The Battle of New Orleans was probably one of the least significant battles in British history, or US history for that matter. The fact that Americans felt the need to focus on it just goes to show how desperate they for something positive to take away from the whole disaster.
Accept it, say 'oh well' and move on.

The same kind of 'draw' as Vietnam.
As US author Stephen Jay Gould observed, US history books might call 1812-1815 a draw, but anyone can see you lost. Your navy did okay though.
The Battle of New Orleans was probably one of the least significant battles in British history, or US history for that matter. The fact that Americans felt the need to focus on it just goes to show how desperate they for something positive to take away from the whole disaster.
Accept it, say 'oh well' and move on.

The reason it is considered a draw is, apart from the treaty eastablishing status quo ante bellum, which the British probably wouldn't have negotiated if they were winning, but that neither side acheived its objectives.

The USA failed completely in their invasion of Canada, and impressment only really stopped because with Napoleon defeated, there was no longer any need to continue it. However, the British retalliatory invasion of the USA was more or less a complete disaster.

If the British had stopped the moment the USA was kicked out of Canada, it would have been a British victory. But they went and screwed it up with a failed land grab.

In general, it annoys me to see either side claim victory in this war, as it is just about THE most indecisive war in history.

The reason it is considered a draw is, apart from the treaty eastablishing status quo ante bellum, which the British probably wouldn't have negotiated if they were winning, but that neither side acheived its objectives.

The British, largely due to a pro-American negotiator, allowed the US a very generous peace treaty. (See the aforementioned SJ Gould book 'Bully for Brontosaurus' if you are really interested.) At that time, the US was being heavily defeated, to the extent that some New England states were openly talking about leaving the union.

The US tried to invade Canada, and failed. They tried to establish naval supremacy, and failed. The retaliatory invasion was exactly that - retaliation. Why let them off the hook? Anyone who thought, then or now, that the invasion was a serious attempt at conquering the US is ignoring some basic facts.

Was Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain a failure, just because he failed to conquer it? No - the idea of that campaign was to save his career by prolonging his governorship of Gaul.

By your logic, Britain won World War Two by preventing the Nazi invasion, but then threw the victory away by invading Germany and yet failing to take ownership of it.

The British, largely due to a pro-American negotiator, allowed the US a very generous peace treaty. (See the aforementioned SJ Gould book 'Bully for Brontosaurus' if you are really interested.) At that time, the US was being heavily defeated, to the extent that some New England states were openly talking about leaving the union.

You'll have to do better than an essay written by an evolutionary biologist, when the rest of historical analysis of the war seems to suggest differently.

They tried to establish naval supremacy, and failed.

The US never tried to establish naval supremacy. They never even challenged the main british fleet. Naval encounters of the war were limited to single-ship battles where US commanders were able to pick weaker opponents.

The retaliatory invasion was exactly that - retaliation. Why let them off the hook? Anyone who thought, then or now, that the invasion was a serious attempt at conquering the US is ignoring some basic facts.

I didn't say it was an attempt at conquering the US, but it was a land grab. Britain and the USA were still disputing borders 50 years later. Even if they did not intend to hold on to any territories they captured, the British invasion failed in all its objectives except capturing DC, and even then they had to burn it down rather than hold onto it.

Was Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain a failure, just because he failed to conquer it? No - the idea of that campaign was to save his career by prolonging his governorship of Gaul.

irrelevent.

By your logic, Britain won World War Two by preventing the Nazi invasion, but then threw the victory away by invading Germany and yet failing to take ownership of it.

No, that's complete nonsense. While britain could have withdrawn from the war and claimed victory in the battle of britain (although, given the original british war aims, anything less than the liberation of France would count as a defeat, so the situation is hardly comparable), we didn't lose by carrying on. The objective of invading germany was to remove the nazi party from power and destroy germany's ability to make war. And also stop the soviets from taking ownership of it. Having achieved those objectives, Britain claimed victory. But it didn't achieve its objectives in invading the USA - i.e. to teach them a lesson, create a native american buffer state, etc. The war only promoted US nationalism.

Lincolnshire Rebellion of March 1470 or the Gurkha War (1814–1816)

You'll have to do better than an essay written by an evolutionary biologist, when the rest of historical analysis of the war seems to suggest differently.


Rapidly losing respect for you. Well observed - Gould is a biologist. However he has a number of other talents, including the ability to read a history book. If that's an ability you possess, perhaps you'd care to do as I suggest and take a look at the situation as it stood when the treaty was arranged.

Now, I hate it very much when a discussion turns into a multiple quote and counter quote frenzy, so I'm not going to play that game.
However, I'll try to make a couple of points:
- Naval battles in the war were not single ship fights, although the US did manage to arrange a few in the early stages. Quite successfully.
- The Roman history comparison illustrates the danger of assessing failure or success based on a poor understanding of initial goals. Your failure to see its relevance speaks volumes.
- Britain/Canada did achieve their only key objective - to keep the US out of Canada. Despite what you say, it did teach them a lesson. Naturally there was an ongoing border dispute. That's what you get when countries have a common border. I'd suggest that the land grab you refer to was unsustainable from the start.
- On second thoughts, I agree that the WW2 comparison wasn't a good one: that situation was quite different.

As US author Stephen Jay Gould observed, US history books might call 1812-1815 a draw, but anyone can see you lost. Your navy did okay though.

Most historians knows that the war was indeed a draw.

The Battle of New Orleans was probably one of the least significant battles in British history, or US history for that matter. The fact that Americans felt the need to focus on it just goes to show how desperate they for something positive to take away from the whole disaster.
Accept it, say 'oh well' and move on.

*yawns*

Nationalistic much?

The reason it is considered a draw is, apart from the treaty eastablishing status quo ante bellum, which the British probably wouldn't have negotiated if they were winning, but that neither side acheived its objectives.

The USA failed completely in their invasion of Canada, and impressment only really stopped because with Napoleon defeated, there was no longer any need to continue it. However, the British retalliatory invasion of the USA was more or less a complete disaster.

If the British had stopped the moment the USA was kicked out of Canada, it would have been a British victory. But they went and screwed it up with a failed land grab.

In general, it annoys me to see either side claim victory in this war, as it is just about THE most indecisive war in history.

Hear Hear

Rapidly losing respect for you. Well observed - Gould is a biologist.

And that loses you credibility right there.

However he has a number of other talents, including the ability to read a history book. If that's an ability you possess, perhaps you'd care to do as I suggest and take a look at the situation as it stood when the treaty was arranged.

Reading a History book is vastly different from actually studying all related materials to the war you are studying. I have studyed 1812 and from my own research (which is more credible than a biologists view because this is my major of choice) the war was a draw. No two ways about it.

Now, I hate it very much when a discussion turns into a multiple quote and counter quote frenzy, so I'm not going to play that game.
However, I'll try to make a couple of points:

This should be good.

- Naval battles in the war were not single ship fights, although the US did manage to arrange a few in the early stages. Quite successfully.

Battle of Lake Erie is a prime example of this. The British Fleet was defeated there.

- Britain/Canada did achieve their only key objective - to keep the US out of Canada. Despite what you say, it did teach them a lesson. Naturally there was an ongoing border dispute. That's what you get when countries have a common border. I'd suggest that the land grab you refer to was unsustainable from the start.

Yes it was just like our invasion of Canada was unsustainable from the start. Therefor, it cancels eachother out. Not to mention shoddy American leadership did not help matters much in the War of 1812 in the Canadian operation.

Rapidly losing respect for you.

Oh noes!

Well observed - Gould is a biologist. However he has a number of other talents, including the ability to read a history book. If that's an ability you possess, perhaps you'd care to do as I suggest and take a look at the situation as it stood when the treaty was arranged.

I think any lecture on reading history books, by someone who upholds a revisionist essay by a biologist merely because it happens to agree with what they want to believe, is going to be taken with a veritable shovel load of salt.

While I wouldn't exactly be sad to hear that back in 1812-1815 good ol' John Bull squashed Uncle Sam like a bug, I'm afraid that's not actually what happened.

Not relevant to the argument above, and I don't know if it has been said, but I find it surprising how little coverage the Spanish Civil War gets in the United States. It may be because I'm Spanish and I live in the U.S., so I may be a little bias, but I consider the Spanish Civil War one of the most important wars leading up to the Second World War, and in some ways the situation in Spain between the 1920s and 1936 resembles that of Iran currently. Not to use this thread as poor man's advertising, but the little responses my thread about the Spanish Civil War on my forum is testament to the point I'm making. Despite the fact my forum only has around ... 5 active members ... many other threads get much discussion. My S.C.W. threads get almost nothing that doesn't come from me. I wrote a post discussing Indigenous Spanish Armour (http://modernwarstudies.net/viewtopic.php?t=661), and what I got was a bunch of questions concerning the Leopard 2E (which appears over 61 years after the Spanish Civil War!). My shoddy 'article' for the forum detaling the T-26B in the Spanish Civil War (http://modernwarstudies.net/viewtopic.php?t=387), which was posted during the beginning to start some dicussion, got nothing.

I've been looking forward to writing a few articles for magazines such as Military Heritage but I haven't gotten around to it. I was surprised to find out Armor Magazine had three articles on it, all dating from 1999 issues (unfortunately, I have only been subscriber since last year). Apart from that, there has been only one book authored in English that has been given widespread coverage and a lot of people know about - The Battle for Spain by Antony Beevor. But that doesn't mention that his prior version - the version I own - published in 1982 was not very widely known, and the English language sources he used are relatively hard to find. I guess I'm just lucky I'm from Spain and can purchase my sources in Spanish (an interesting aside, my Wikipedia article on the T-26 light tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-26) uses four Spanish sources - only one English source really had good information on the T-26 and that has just been published).

I realize that there are many other wars that may be even less remembered, or studied, or however you want to scale a 'forgotten war', but I don't think that any of those surpass the Spanish Civil War in importance when regarding global influence.

All I know about the Spanish Civil War is it gave Hitler a chance to test out the Luftwaffe, and it made sure that Hitler didn’t invade Spain as he was good friends with Franco afterwards.

I think the main reason wars are forgotten here in the GRB seems to be that our education system seems adamant that the little kiddywinkles shouldn’t be thought about battles and fighting, also I believe too much emphasis is put on the 20th century, in my history lessons the oldest thing we study is jack the ripper, then the great war, then the blitz (yawn) and the cold war. And things like the empire are only briefly mentioned and usually for all the wrong reasons. Another thing I noticed is that when studying wars its always “the British invented the tank.. blah blah” instead of “we invented the tank,” this is down to lack of nationalistic pride but that’s another story. If history at High School continues this way British kids will think the world is about 120 years old!

As to avoid a controversial argument about patriotic education in the UK, the problem IMO exists in the United States. We actually also had a large thread (http://modernwarstudies.net/viewtopic.php?t=667) on patriotic eduction, and most of it revolved around the United States. Apparently, one of the members didn't think it was and thought I had been educated with leftist propaganda. :eek:

All I know about the Spanish Civil War is it gave Hitler a chance to test out the Luftwaffe, and it made sure that Hitler didn’t invade Spain as he was good friends with Franco afterwards.

I think the main reason wars are forgotten here in the GRB seems to be that our education system seems adamant that the little kiddywinkles shouldn’t be thought about battles and fighting, also I believe too much emphasis is put on the 20th century, in my history lessons the oldest thing we study is jack the ripper, then the great war, then the blitz (yawn) and the cold war. And things like the empire are only briefly mentioned and usually for all the wrong reasons. Another thing I noticed is that when studying wars its always “the British invented the tank.. blah blah” instead of “we invented the tank,” this is down to lack of nationalistic pride but that’s another story. If history at High School continues this way British kids will think the world is about 120 years old!
Don't get me onto it, I study History at A level, but my real passion is the Byzantine and early republican Rome and, though I wouldn't expect these subjects to get a mension, nothign pre-1850 does. So far I've done:

Year 2: World War 2
Year 6: World War 2
Year 7: American Indians
Year 8: Hitler
Year 9: World War 1
Year 10/11: The Rise of National Socalism
Year 12: Mussolini, Gladstone adn Disrali, Hitler: The Seeds of Evil (Awful Historical tital)
Year 13: Byzantine History, From Justain to Basil (My choice) Lloyd George and the Peoples Budget.

The next modual, that I havn't studied yet, is also on Hitler.

What's worse is that unless you go to a University or post-graduate school that allows you to take classes that specialize, normally the era spanning from ~2,000 B.C.E. to 1453 C.E. is mashed into one unit called 'Western Civilization I', or some such. Furthermore, if your passion is military history of the era and you're looking forward to becoming a historian you might as well make it a private hobby. I was looking into a history major, but then I settled on Mech. Engineering, but my passion in history was a bit more widely taught (modern military history). Despite this, I've seen more literature on the Byzantine Empire in Borders than on the Spanish Civil War. From a rought estimate I would say there are perhaps 10-20 books on the Byzantine Empire; there are 0 on the Spanish Civil War. :P

This is getting petty.
In response to two irritating claims:
- No I'm not nationalistic. The word 'Pictish' is a hint, though maybe not a very good one.
- Dismissing Gould as a 'biologist' (or for that matter an 'evolutionary biologist', whatever one of those is) and therefore irrelevant, shows a limited way of thinking. The same limited thinking that means you probably don't realise the significance of George Canning's left buttock.
- I'm not saying Uncle Sam got squashed. Uncle Sam and his crew came out of it with credit, but that's not the same thing as winning, or forcing a draw.

As for everything else, I've already set out my side of the argument, going over it again would just be pointless repetition. I think you're determined to be wrong, you no doubt think the same about me. Big deal - we're grownups so we can agree to disagree.

[offers to shake hands; wanders off.]

Nationalistic much?

You can talk..

why is it that most people know who Hannibal was?
Cause they constantly re-air the A-team.

You can talk..

Yes I can talk. I'm a patriot but not a nationalist. I explained the difference but I guess you missed that post.

- Dismissing Gould as a 'biologist' (or for that matter an 'evolutionary biologist', whatever one of those is) and therefore irrelevant, shows a limited way of thinking. The same limited thinking that means you probably don't realise the significance of George Canning's left buttock.

We can dismiss him because he is a biologist and not a historian. Unless of course you can prove that he has a history degree as well with a list of his published works in said field. I'll take a historian over a biologist any day of the week.

- I'm not saying Uncle Sam got squashed. Uncle Sam and his crew came out of it with credit, but that's not the same thing as winning, or forcing a draw.

We didn't lose the war either so yea, there was a draw regardless of what you are trying to push.

*snip*

bon voyage

bon voyage

That's what I'm talking about - you got offered a peace treaty, and you didn't see fit to accept it in good heart.

That's what I'm talking about - you got offered a peace treaty, and you didn't see fit to accept it in good heart.

My suggestion to you is to read up on the Diplomacy that ended the War of 1812. You are right that we rejected the British offer of peace. Then they turned around and rejected our offer of peace when word reached France that the Brits lost at Baltimore, Lost at Fort McHenry, losing in NY. The Treaty of Ghent was a COMPROMISE that went to the status quo ante bellum.

Read up on it some more and maybe you can actually see where you are historicly wrong.

We can dismiss him because he is a biologist and not a historian. Unless of course you can prove that he has a history degree as well with a list of his published works in said field. I'll take a historian over a biologist any day of the week.

...isn't that a little pretentious to think that only someone with a college degree in history can be a historian? Some of the most evocative historians in the English language had little or no formal training as historians: Churchill and Gibbon come to mind. To say nothing of the great and defining historical works that emanate from a time when there was no such thing as formal education for historians: There is no question that Thucydides, Livy, Diodorus, and Suetonius are not any less of historians because the formal schooling in historical methodology, as we understand it now, did not exist in the ancient Mediterranean world. What has always determined the efficacy of the historian has been their examination of the past and the chronicling thereof. Whether someone spent their undergrad years majoring in theoretical physics or undergrad anatomy, if they even went to college(as I've quite a few retired men who've become avid local historians), has little bearing on a person's ability to produce history and be considered a historian.

And, on the topic at hand of forgotten wars, I do have one from the Eighteenth Century: The War of Bavarian Succession. The Potato War, as it's more comically known, could not have been a more fitting end to the series of wars fought between Frederick II and Maria Theresa.

About forgotten wars. How about the numerous conflicts the Hanseatic league had fought.

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but: The Anarchy, also known as The Nineteen Year Winter. It was a civil war fought for the throne of England in the 12th century, between King Stephen of England and Empress Matilda, daughter of Henry I.

Then they turned around and rejected our offer of peace when word reached France that the Brits lost at Baltimore, Lost at Fort McHenry, losing in NY. The Treaty of Ghent was a COMPROMISE that went to the status quo ante bellum.

That's why George Canning's left buttock is so significant.

Glad to see that this row has calmed down. Naturally the war reached a military stalemate, since Canada was secure and British forces could not hope to conquer the US. However, my point was that US goals in Canada had not been achieved, while the British/Canadian goal of stopping them had - a victory. Impressment had ended, but so had the European war that made it necessary.

Incidentally, Gould is an essayist and history is one of the subjects he has published essays on. I didn't want to call him 'a historian', because that is not his main focus. His all-round knowledge is what makes him a good read.
Come to think of it, I've had historical essays published as well. The last one was about Jutland, in which the Germans dealt a savage blow to the Royal Navy's reputation. Some historians call that a draw, but it wasn't - the Germans lost the battle, both tactically and strategically.

For fucks sake, in every thread about every war... US and British historians freakin go apeshit about the war of 1812 over who won blah blah wa wa wa! if your so goddamned concerned about it, how about we fucking do it all over again. You Brits, start impressing US sailors and we'll declare war on you. Then we'll have at eachother with everything we got. If you say the US has an unfair advantage these days... suck my fat pineapple eatin ass cuz you had the advantage 10fold back then and we still managed to win...twice.:upyours:

That's why George Canning's left buttock is so significant.

Glad to see that this row has calmed down. Naturally the war reached a military stalemate, since Canada was secure and British forces could not hope to conquer the US. However, my point was that US goals in Canada had not been achieved, while the British/Canadian goal of stopping them had - a victory. Impressment had ended, but so had the European war that made it necessary.

And the goals of the British were not achieved either. Hence, it was a draw. Not bad for a brand spanking new nation to force a draw with the British forces.

Incidentally, Gould is an essayist and history is one of the subjects he has published essays on. I didn't want to call him 'a historian', because that is not his main focus. His all-round knowledge is what makes him a good read.
Come to think of it, I've had historical essays published as well. The last one was about Jutland, in which the Germans dealt a savage blow to the Royal Navy's reputation. Some historians call that a draw, but it wasn't - the Germans lost the battle, both tactically and strategically.

Actually I'll disagree with you on the last part. The Germans actually won the battle tactically but lost the battle strategically because they basicly withdrew from the war. It was like the Japanese winning tacticly at Coral Sea but losing strategicly because they retreated.

For fucks sake, in every thread about every war... US and British historians freakin go apeshit about the war of 1812 over who won blah blah wa wa wa! if your so goddamned concerned about it, how about we fucking do it all over again. You Brits, start impressing US sailors and we'll declare war on you. Then we'll have at eachother with everything we got. If you say the US has an unfair advantage these days... suck my fat pineapple eatin ass cuz you had the advantage 10fold back then and we still managed to win...twice.:upyours:

1) Nice flame

2) 1812 was a draw

So grow up.

On this note actually I have been looking through the wiki articles of the battles of the War of 1812, and I have to say, it must have been a remarkably boring war, nothing really at stake, except when they burned down The White House, lol. But if you look at the battles, the casualties are ridiculously low, occasionally a few guys are captured, it seems like nothing but a loose arrangement of minor skirmishers.

If you peoples want to see a proper war, check out what was happening on the other side of the world in 1812. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia_%281812%29)

Well, you could also say things like the War of 1812, the Mongols completely mauling the Middle East, Roman Conquest in the Middle East, the Spanish-American war (thought that does get mentioned in textbooks, no one ever talks about it).

The Cod War, I suppose it is too recent to be taught in history at school, and too long ago for most of you young whipper snappers to remember but I nominate those dark days in the 1970's when Britain and Iceland went to war over fish.

1) Nice flame

2) 1812 was a draw

So grow up.

While not very well stated, he does have a point. It would be nice if 1812 didnt come up in 8/10 war threads >_>

Lol ... i think it's funny u refere to certain events in US or outside US history... but americans don't know most of their countryes history :D .... but if u ask them when McDonalds was invented..or the war between McDonalds and KFC they would all answer u...even tell u the names of the casuelties :)) ...

Don't refer to specific periods of history......refer to the basics of history... like....who was the first man that found the continet....who made the flag...the song ...etc... u will find out that allmost no one knows the basics.. :P

.......and u talk about more important events :D:D ... u guys are funny :D

The post preceeding mine has caused my eyes to spontaneously combust...

...this ruins my dinner plans.

Well..i only give u reality as it is :P ... cry..laff....u decide.... but this is the reality ... do you understand my philosophy young grasshopper? :D ... u have to listen to the wind.....be one with the sea.... to see reality as it is

Lol ... i think it's funny u refere to certain events in US or outside US history... but americans don't know most of their countryes history :D .... but if u ask them when McDonalds was invented..or the war between McDonalds and KFC they would all answer u...even tell u the names of the casuelties :)) ...

Don't refer to specific periods of history......refer to the basics of history... like....who was the first man that found the continet....who made the flag...the song ...etc... u will find out that allmost no one knows the basics.. :P

.......and u talk about more important events :D:D ... u guys are funny :D

oh u

I dont know when McDonalds was 'invented', hell, I didnt even know there was a 'war' between McDonalds and KFC (outside of the regular capitolist war that exists between all business).
I could, however, tell you that there is significant debate as to who 'found' the continient. I assume your discounting the native Americans and the prehistoric people who were there first, but most people think the first 'official' European (IE: Not a viking, Chinese, Carthagenian or some other unqualified hic) was Amerigo Vespuuchi (which I most likely didnt spell correctly). Columbus has his fans to, but he didnt really find the continient, now did he?

And if you want to go into more detail, then maybe you'll answer me some questions about Russian history? I personally find US history to be boring. 'So and so went here and killed Indians' followed by 'ZOMGZ INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION' then a few wars with Germans, then some wars with EVIL COMMIES.

The Americans had their Westward Expansion, the Russians had the Great Game, which was far more interesting and involved people marching all over Central/Southern Asia subduing local tribes who were far cooler than those silly American Indians.
And Russia had Peter the Great, possibly the coolest man in the entirity of world history :P

The price wars between the Dutch supermarkets. They ended only recently.

What's worse is that unless you go to a University or post-graduate school that allows you to take classes that specialize, normally the era spanning from ~2,000 B.C.E. to 1453 C.E. is mashed into one unit called 'Western Civilization I', or some such. Furthermore, if your passion is military history of the era and you're looking forward to becoming a historian you might as well make it a private hobby. I was looking into a history major, but then I settled on Mech. Engineering, but my passion in history was a bit more widely taught (modern military history). Despite this, I've seen more literature on the Byzantine Empire in Borders than on the Spanish Civil War. From a rought estimate I would say there are perhaps 10-20 books on the Byzantine Empire; there are 0 on the Spanish Civil War. :P

That why I've decided to do poltics ot be hoenst, no courses on the periods i'm intrested in, it's all mdoern or the greeks.

Jade Star ... i was subtile with the McDonalds and KFC wars and stuff..i was refering to the knowledge that american citizens have.... they only know about these things..the majority of them..i am not saying all of them...but somewhere arround 80% :D

The fact that u don't know when these immaginary wars happened..shows me u actually think before answering.... others would have gone searched the history books for that war :)))))

It would be a shame for them...from my point of view... to see that they don't know even the basics.... considering they don't have a long history like other countryes

Jade Star ... i was subtile with the McDonalds and KFC wars and stuff..i was refering to the knowledge that american citizens have.... they only know about these things..the majority of them..i am not saying all of them...but somewhere arround 80% :D

The fact that u don't know when these immaginary wars happened..shows me u actually think before answering.... others would have gone searched the history books for that war :)))))

I wouldnt say %80 of Americans take that much interest in fast food. In my experience the LCD cares about the object, not the history thereof. Most of them probobly think that McDonalds grows the food themselves in special vats.

Hmmm, but one could also argue that such a war did indeed occur, it doesnt seem terribly unlikely that McDonalds and KFC have, at some point in their history, engaged in a price war. In fact, it seems very unlikely that this event would NOT have occured.
And I enjoy thinking. Its one of my many hobbies.

was between rival businesses is common everywere... i was refering to the fact that US citizens know more about these firms and sometimes consider other mutch more important historical facts less important... or don't even know them...but they know the stuff that doesn't really count... funny usless stuff :D:D

And the goals of the British were not achieved either.

I maintain that the goal of the British was to keep the US out of Canada, which they did. The option to agree to disagree remains open.
I agree that the US forces gave a good account of themselves.

As for Jutland, it looks like we're using the word 'tactically' to mean different things. I'd say the Germans won what you might call a moral victory - they had less ships and less sailors, yet inflicted far heavier losses on the British. However, they failed to achieve their tactical goal of putting the British navy out of action, or their strategic goal of breaking the naval blockade.

I maintain that the goal of the British was to keep the US out of Canada, which they did. The option to agree to disagree remains open.
I agree that the US forces gave a good account of themselves.

I suggest you go back and look at the Britis war aims. They go beyond defending Canada.

As for Jutland, it looks like we're using the word 'tactically' to mean different things. I'd say the Germans won what you might call a moral victory - they had less ships and less sailors, yet inflicted far heavier losses on the British. However, they failed to achieve their tactical goal of putting the British navy out of action, or their strategic goal of breaking the naval blockade.

we could be but meh.

Yeah...we got the better end of the deal, methinks.

Have you ever heard the old joke "Let's have another war, loser gets Detroit"?

A forgotten almost-war: The Battle of Los Angeles (aka Rodney King riots).

Regular troops and tanks dispatched to Los Angeles in riot police service. Tens of casualties.

If you’re British (& commonwealth), French, German or Russian this is going to sound weird. But I believe the rest of the world seems to have little interest or know much about The Great War, War To End All Wars, WW1, etc. I was talking to some American lassie and I asked her what she knew about the WW1, this was on Armistice Day. And she knew virtually nothing about it and believed Veterans Day was for Vietnam. Much more emphasis seems to go on WW2, which, although did change the world, not as much as WW1.

I get that too. I'm an American and I get pissed when people are like that. But the reality is that people just don't care about the past, nor do they see how it affects them and how it shapes their lives.

Have you ever heard the old joke "Let's have another war, loser gets Detroit"?

lol, the war between what? Michigan and Ohio? A pig died I believe.....

lol, the war between what? Michigan and Ohio? A pig died I believe.....

Nope, that was a different war between the US and the UK. The only "casualty" of the Toledo War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_War) was a Michigan Sheriff who was stabbed in the leg by an Ohioan named Two Stickney. The Wikipedia page on the "war" is actually quite good.

There's a gaping hole when it comes to Latin America, and while their wars may be rather insignificant at the global level, their revolutions were crucial: they permanently removed Spain from the status of a Great Power, and the USSA potentiality doesn't get much sun compared to other what-ifs.

The Polish-Soviet war is neglected even more than the brilliance of certain Polish officers and the bravery of their men in WW2. I find this very distressing, since it starts people off saying "Nazis were horrific... but they did save us from the commies, in a way". Forgetting Poland's role and glorifying Nazism simultaneously.

And then there's the War of the Spanish Succesion. Massive war! Stylin' hats! Big hair! Changes and indeed creates European balance of power forever! Britain pwns France! Twice! You would've though we Brits would be hearing a lot of that one.

And as for the War of 1812, I can understand that. Far be it from America to admit it invaded Canada twice (two more times than everyone else) and lost both times.

I suggest you go back and look at the Britis war aims. They go beyond defending Canada.


Could you give me a clue? I'm a bit busy this week. Certainly too busy to go leafing through two-century-old Houses of Parliament minutes, even if that was my idea of a fun day out.

Could you give me a clue? I'm a bit busy this week. Certainly too busy to go leafing through two-century-old Houses of Parliament minutes, even if that was my idea of a fun day out.

One of them was, if I am not mistaken, creating an Indian buffer state. That did not come about.

The wars of the 18th Century are I believe forgotten en masse, save only the Revolutionary Wars with France, and the American Revolution.

A history student in my college at university had not heard, until I mentioned them to her, of either the Seven Years War, or the War of Spanish Succession.
Please...a history student...at a very good university...had never heard of two extremely significant wars in the history of her own country and of Europe as a whole.

Now, personally, I love European history of the 17th/18th centuries, so even though I'm an engineer I find out about these things for myself.
But most people seem to end up studying:
Hitler - why he was bad.
Stalin - why he was also bad, but was on our side.
Slavery - why the Empire was bad.
Until they give up in boredom and disgust aged 14.

The wars of the 18th Century are I believe forgotten en masse, save only the Revolutionary Wars with France, and the American Revolution.

A history student in my college at university had not heard, until I mentioned them to her, of either the Seven Years War, or the War of Spanish Succession.
Please...a history student...at a very good university...had never heard of two extremely significant wars in the history of her own country and of Europe as a whole.

I guess she slept through history class because in every history class I have had, I had to listen to a lesson on the Seven Years War (AKA French and Indian War). I wonder what school district she is from?

She needs to find a different profession.

I guess she slept through history class because in every history class I have had, I had to listen to a lesson on the Seven Years War (AKA French and Indian War). I wonder what school district she is from?

She needs to find a different profession.

School district? Borough of Croydon I suppose...don't know the London school system that well. To be fair, I was never taught about either of those wars in school.
And I have a little more faith in the Oxford admissions process than you evidently do.
She's a social historian, focussed more on the late 19th-20th centuries. While I would consider you should have a good overview of your subject, her lack of knowledge on it does nothing to her ability in the area she wishes to study.

School district? Borough of Croydon I suppose...don't know the London school system that well. To be fair, I was never taught about either of those wars in school.

Then apparently the borough needs to get its act together. Most school children here read about the French and Indian War early on in their educational lives. Either that or they forget about it later on because they hate history. One of the two :D

And I have a little more faith in the Oxford admissions process than you evidently do.

Did I say anything about the admissions process? No I did not. Please leave the implication out of your posts. I did not imply it and you know it.

She's a social historian, focussed more on the late 19th-20th centuries. While I would consider you should have a good overview of your subject, her lack of knowledge on it does nothing to her ability in the area she wishes to study.

Now you clarified it. you should have said social historian from the start.

Well, I think Croydon has some more serious educational problems than merely one period of history, and in any case under the National Curriculum their freedom is...distinctly limited.

T'other was inference, and somewhat irrelevant to start with.

And for all she's a social historian, she's only a first year, so there's quite a bit of political history she still has to do before she gets to fully specialise...

Returning to the main topic of the thread, I also think the English Civil Wars and Glorious Revolution are somewhat unjustly neglected, both at home and abroad.
The level of significance to Britain's political system is huge; it had large effects on the American colonies, both directly and in terms of political thought; the Protectorate is the first time since the early Middle Ages England was a major power of note abroad - hints of things to come there - and finally it's full of colourful personalities, interesting events and general interesting stuff.

Returning to the main topic of the thread, I also think the English Civil Wars and Glorious Revolution are somewhat unjustly neglected, both at home and abroad.
The level of significance to Britain's political system is huge; it had large effects on the American colonies, both directly and in terms of political thought; the Protectorate is the first time since the early Middle Ages England was a major power of note abroad - hints of things to come there - and finally it's full of colourful personalities, interesting events and general interesting stuff.

I could not agree with you more.

One of them was, if I am not mistaken, creating an Indian buffer state. That did not come about.

Certainly a good idea for the British if they could have achieved it, though a totally insignificant goal compared with defending Canada.

forgotten wars, there are many for one reason or another....some were hidden or propagandized to get people believe they were done for a glorious cause of the liberation of the local natives...what they liberating was the natives freedom and wealth, The Boer War-English Imperialism at it's best..Philippine-American War 1899-1902 A war American educators would rather not discuss...

Certainly a good idea for the British if they could have achieved it, though a totally insignificant goal compared with defending Canada.

That was just one goal I could think of off the top of my head.

The American government has an alarming tendancy to forget about Vietnam when planning strategy. I saw a news story about training the Iraqis (or Afghans, don't remember which) to take control of their own military. I was like, "*cough* Vietnamization *cough*."

Now, personally, I love European history of the 17th/18th centuries, so even though I'm an engineer I find out about these things for myself.
But most people seem to end up studying:
Hitler - why he was bad.
Stalin - why he was also bad, but was on our side.
Slavery - why the Empire was bad.
Until they give up in boredom and disgust aged 14.

That generally seems to be the case. Its odd that history classes seem to skip the Cold War as well...another case of 'Russia was just kind of there.' it seems.
Sometimes I wonder if Russia existed at all outside of 1812 and 1941 >_>

I don't think its the peoples fault that a lot of these wars/rebellions/revolutions are forgotten or not known (and Im not stating that your making the accusation that forgetting them is their fault)...

Man has been in war recorded as late as 2700 BC and there are probably billions of wars that have occurred since then... So to remember and learn all or even most of these wars, including ones within the past millenium, would take a very long time to learn and a hard time to remember... So I just think its sensible that a lot of people haven't heard about most of these wars and to let time dissolve these wars out of our memories...

I don't think its the peoples fault that a lot of these wars/rebellions/revolutions are forgotten or not known (and Im not stating that your making the accusation that forgetting them is their fault)...

Man has been in war recorded as late as 2700 BC and there are probably billions of wars that have occurred since then... So to remember and learn all or even most of these wars, including ones within the past millenium, would take a very long time to learn and a hard time to remember... So I just think its sensible that a lot of people haven't heard about most of these wars and to let time dissolve these wars out of our memories...

I was mostly indicating wars of global significance which were ignored for various reasons.
The Crimean War had a serious impact on Europe (and thus, the world, since Europe owned most of it in one way or another during that period), changed the balance of power, and changed European warfare.

The term 'thin red line' came before the Crimea. But still I have a feeling that most people who didnt fight in those wars (Basically the entirety of Europe) dont really know much about the time it came from...

Anyone who does, Ill give them a cyber hug :) It just gets me annoyed...That such a massive event, the Napoleonic ages are not taught much all around the globe, but specifically America, America only really seems to base history around its self, and since its such a young country, it really isnt that much. I should know, Ive been to school in America. Hated it.

How about the English Civil war? We killed our King and became a 'Protectorate'...who knew that one?

How about the English Civil war? We killed our King and became a 'Protectorate'...who knew that one?

uh...me...Its pretty much more then compulsory to learn that in history nowadays.

The one that I am surprised no-one has mentioned yet was the War of the Triple Alliance. Paraguay, who fought against Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, lost and was, as a result, severely hindered in terms of development for 150 years because of the loss of its population; particularly male (in 1871, Paraguay had a population of 221,000; only 28,000 were male).

Although Paraguay was badly hindered, it also hindered Argentina and Brazil financially - it took eighty years for Brazilian War Debts to be repaid, and a pattern was established. Also, Uruguay ended up becoming an effective one-party democracy; the Colorado Party gained control, which they kept for eighty years.

Finally, it was Brazil's "Civil War" - slavery was undermined by the War of the Triple Alliance and in the end, all the slaves were freed a few years later.

Also, I think the Anglo-Zanzibar War is forgotten

The one that I am surprised no-one has mentioned yet was the War of the Triple Alliance. Paraguay, who fought against Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, lost and was, as a result, severely hindered in terms of development for 150 years because of the loss of its population; particularly male (in 1871, Paraguay had a population of 221,000; only 28,000 were male).

Although Paraguay was badly hindered, it also hindered Argentina and Brazil financially - it took eighty years for Brazilian War Debts to be repaid, and a pattern was established. Also, Uruguay ended up becoming an effective one-party democracy; the Colorado Party gained control, which they kept for eighty years.

Finally, it was Brazil's "Civil War" - slavery was undermined by the War of the Triple Alliance and in the end, all the slaves were freed a few years later.

Also, I think the Anglo-Zanzibar War is forgotten

All of thats pretty much be mentioned already. It takes ages to read :) but its there somewhere, i remember reading it...

How about the English Civil war? We killed our King and became a 'Protectorate'...who knew that one?

Me.

That was just one goal I could think of off the top of my head.

Can you consult that college paper you wrote, and come up with a few more?

Certainly not a major topic outside of the U.K., though. Beyond that, imagine all those wars which aren't studied which have taken place in Africa since the decolonization.

How about the English Civil war? We killed our King and became a 'Protectorate'...who knew that one?

Yeah, it's hardly forgotten, certainly not in most parts of the UK. Especially with the Sealed Knot and other such characters around to remind us.

Add: Do I rightly remember that Oliver Cromwell tried to ban Christmas? Rocking good idea.

Can you consult that college paper you wrote, and come up with a few more?

I didn'twrite a college paper on the War of 1812.

I wonder how much The Falklands is talked about outside Britain, man I bet the argie lessons are biased.

Add: Do I rightly remember that Oliver Cromwell tried to ban Christmas? Rocking good idea.

Not quite Cromwell, it was the Puritans in 1647 that banned Christmas (before Cromwell's coup of 1648), although the attempt become very strong under the rule of the Major-Generals

I wonder how much The Falklands is talked about outside Britain, man I bet the argie lessons are biased.

Ive heard of it a bit, it had a whole section (sub-chapter section, not book-section :P) in my High School history book.

I wonder how much The Falklands is talked about outside Britain, man I bet the argie lessons are biased.

I know that the Falklands provide case study for the U.S. General Staff War College. In a book published by the U.S. General Staff War College, Combined Arms in Warfare Since 1939, the Falklands War is reviewed for two lessons - logistics and endurance. 'Endurance' appraises British soldiers and 'Logistics' both appraises and criticizes the logistics situation for the Royal Army (lack of certain weapons, i.e.).

Part of the book has been scanned in on my site (U.S. propery is not copyrighted); unfortunately, I'm not done yet and I've lost access to my PC for a while. I have cases 1-9. You can read it here (http://modernwarstudies.net/viewtopic.php?t=42).

Wow. In all these pages, the Tripolean War (I think that's what it's called) is never mentioned. The brand-new American navy took on the North African pirates and won, who then faded from history. I can't imagine what that did to patriotism back home.

Another war which seems to have been forgotten was the New Zealand Wars - it was the one of the few times that the British Empire lost in the field and won through politics throughout the 19th Century. Even more interesting was the fact that they were fighting the indigenous Maori. Of course I do grant that they were the equivalent of pillow fights and the battlesites were smaller than the average school.

Another war which seems to have been forgotten was the New Zealand Wars - it was the one of the few times that the British Empire lost in the field and won through politics throughout the 19th Century. Even more interesting was the fact that they were fighting the indigenous Maori. Of course I do grant that they were the equivalent of pillow fights and the battlesites were smaller than the average school.
But the Maori are excellent warriors and their tactics were supreme.
-----------------
Mark Waugh, the forgotten Waugh.

But the Maori are excellent warriors and their tactics were supreme.
-----------------
Mark Waugh, the forgotten Waugh.


Just a guess, but where their like 20 british solders and 500 mauri. That always seems to be the case when the British lost battles in thoses days.

Wow. In all these pages, the Tripolean War (I think that's what it's called) is never mentioned. The brand-new American navy took on the North African pirates and won, who then faded from history. I can't imagine what that did to patriotism back home.

I watched a documentary about that once.

Wow. In all these pages, the Tripolean War (I think that's what it's called) is never mentioned. The brand-new American navy took on the North African pirates and won, who then faded from history. I can't imagine what that did to patriotism back home.

You mean the Barbary Pirates? That is not forgotten. It is in our history books and it is in the Marine Corp Song.

You mean the Barbary Pirates? That is not forgotten. It is in our history books and it is in the Marine Corp Song.

I know, but how many people know anything about it?

I know, but how many people know anything about it?

I do. It's why Jefferson got a copy of the Koran. He wanted to know the enemy, and why the enemy thought they had the right to enslave, rob, and kill captured Americans at sea.

Just a guess, but where their like 20 british solders and 500 mauri. That always seems to be the case when the British lost battles in thoses days.

Yeh why do we always seem to have so much smaller numbers, doesn't stop us winning alot of the time tho.

How about Singapore in The Second World War though? "Bunny" the spineless dolt in charge gave it up without a fight not realising that he was facing a Japanese force 1/3 the size of his and with a shortage of ammunition. A counter attack then could have halted the Japenese advance across Asia and the North Pacific for a short time atleast. Oh well, that's hindsight for you.

Yeh why do we always seem to have so much smaller numbers, doesn't stop us winning alot of the time tho.

How about Singapore in The Second World War though? "Bunny" the spineless dolt in charge gave it up without a fight not realising that he was facing a Japanese force 1/3 the size of his and with a shortage of ammunition. A counter attack then could have halted the Japenese advance across Asia and the North Pacific for a short time atleast. Oh well, that's hindsight for you.

Being honest, the British were screwed with the Battle of Singapore; the Japs had modern tanks and modern planes, the British had no tanks and their planes were mostly old museum pieces. Also, the British would have eventually run out of ammunition and the Japs would have gained a continuous supply.

Just a guess, but where their like 20 british solders and 500 mauri. That always seems to be the case when the British lost battles in thoses days.

Actually it was not so simple as that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maori_war

It seems often that small numbers of Maori would manoeuvre it so that superior British and New Zealander numbers would be wasted against them.

I didn'twrite a college paper on the War of 1812.

Apologies. I misunderstood your phrase 'this is my major of choice'.

Just a guess, but where their like 20 british solders and 500 mauri. That always seems to be the case when the British lost battles in thoses days.
Not at all,
I watched a documentary about that once.
Me too.
You mean the Barbary Pirates? That is not forgotten. It is in our history books and it is in the Marine Corp Song.
From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tirpoli?
*Doesn't really know the words*

Apologies. I misunderstood your phrase 'this is my major of choice'.

History is my major of choice as is Politics :D

Not at all,

Me too.

From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tirpoli?
*Doesn't really know the words*

We'll fight our country's battles on the land and air and sea.