The Top Ten Battles of All Time.

The North ruthlessly invaded? The South were the ones that fired the first shots.

 

Uh, Sarge, Skunk Works, there isn't a credible Historian living and breathing, or dead for that matter, who would tell us that the North "ruthlessly invaded" the South in order to abolish slavery. Only those with a very marginal understanding of U.S. History would have/or adhere to such a notion.

Anyone, anyone who understands the scope of U.S. History realizes that Lincoln reacted to the rebellious southern states the way he did was to PRESERVE THE UNION. Thank goodness he did. If not quite possibly the southern states would still be mired in a slave economy because the very few who owned most of the slaves and controlled most of the wealth in the South could have cared less about industry or the coming of the technological age. It was too easy for them to live extremely well of the sweat of those in bondage who did all the work. The large numbers of southern boys fighting for the Confederacy were CLUELESS, uneducated country folk who were DUPED into thinking that they were fighting to preserve their rights when in fact they were fighting to preserve an inhuman, antiquated and utterly inexcusable way of life for less than 5% of the people of the South.

Lincoln of course saw this war as an opportunity to once and for all end that "peculiar institution" which will forever be a dark spot on the history of our great nation.

Do you realize how damn shameful and embarrassing it is to teach 12 and 13 year old CHILDREN about this sad chapter in our history?

WHAT ARE YOU THINKING!!!!!! or what are you not thinking?

Finally, in which Northern states were these so called 4 million slaves held in bondage pray tell?

Later

 

I think Cambrai, the battle that really set the stage for modern tank warfare, deserves a spot on that list.

 

Incorrect. The first shots of the War Between the States were provoked by the Federal Army. I'm sure everyone knows about the Star of The West incident? The Confederate Government had sent a delegate to the Federal Government in 1860-61 to ask the Federal forces inside of Fort Sumter and allover the south to peacefully leave those installation that were in the Southern States and that the Confederate Army would take control of those installations and maintain them.

However, instead of peacefully leaving without incident Lincoln and Maj. Anderson, after telling the Confederate delegate that they would leave the fortification decided to resupply to the fortification which eventually provoked those shots.

Hence the first shot was decided in Washington, DC not in Charleston, SC.

To Stefan, the issue of Slavery coming into the WBTS was a propaganda ploy. During the presidential race of 1858 which eventually led to Lincolns victory, Lincoln in NONE...get that...0..of his speeches spoke of abolishing slavery. It was a hot topic but, it had been since the 1820's. However, the issue of secession was an understood right of all of the states placed there by our forefathers, Secession was a right made by our forefather by all of the states agreeing not just some but, ALL. Our forefathers foresaw the fact that a centralized government could trample our rights just as much as a King could so they left the control to the STATES, what happened in said state was said states business. Not another states problem said state was basically taking care of all of its own issues in-house.

(EX.(And this is just a hypothetical) Say you all signed up to be members of a gentlemens club and after a while some of the other members start to intrude themselves into your home lives, your private lives.... wouldn't you want to get out of that particular club?

Well, thats what the North was basically doing...they were telling the Confederates how they should be living their lives. Personally, the Confederates had ,had enough of it and left with darn good cause. Nobody should be in charge of another persons life. Now I know what your going to say well what about the slaves? Doesn't that apply to them as well? Yes, it does and thats where the great misconstruding of the truth comes in.

With the abolishionists yelling about slavery and abolishing it they used their influence to pursue it through coersion by bribing politicians to bring it to the forefront when nobody on Capitol Hill was bringing it up.

The abolishionists used their propaganda to tell the Northern population wht they saw in the South...Oh, the Souths got slaves, they beat the slaves...they're backwards and barefoot... In fact it was very much the opposite. The slaves on many of the plantations were not mistreated. Some were actually educated to a degree but, still educated, they were treated as part of the family in many instances. They were given a place to live, a place to work and three square meals a day.. Thats a LOT more than the Italians and Irish coming off the boats into the North were given....The slaves in some instances were given shotguns to hunt with and after so much time in their service they were given a piece of land to call their own. Now granted yes some were whipped but, those instances are with those limited owners...in every group you are bound to have a few bad apples.

What about "Uncle Tom's Cabin" Harriet Tubman never visited the South until after the war. All of her scribblings came from VERY left-wing abolishionists that visited the home in the NORTH she was a servant in.

The Confiscation Act.. HAHAHA... what a joke. The Confederate Constitution of 1861 bars the importation of slaves into the South its THE first document to abolish the right of importation of such cargo. As for slaves in the North? I meant endentured servants which are "slaves"...no not freed the were a marginal make up of the slave population in the North and many states actually allowed slavery in the North.

The fighting in Kansas was not condoned by the Confederate government because of the brutal tactics that were being used against the population. Quantrell acted on his own, he saw himself as a part of the Confederacy but, they didn't claim him or acknowledge his actions. Jeff Davis in 1862, sent a memo to all field commanders that were under the Confederate Governments control that..." when enggaged in a town they protection of the population is your first priority." The Confederate Government didn't condone brutal tactics like that of Quantrell, if the war was going to be waged it would be waged through conventional means.

As for the South against the Republicans...so what its new! During the WBTS, the Republicans today are now our Democrats and the Democrats are todays Republicans. The party swap happened during FDR's "Big Deal" during the 30's.

Sefan, revisionists? Talk to the Democrats, they want the US population to think of the Southerners as backward and stupid. I don't believe we are. As a matter of fact in our US History books the US Government is trying to take out everything from the WBTS to WWII since our education system doesn't get to those events in the US History ciriculum. Talk about revisionists... they're trying to make us forget about it but, taking out from in front of us....and guess what..."he who forgets the past, is doomed to repeat it."

JPatterson,

In this case I am sorry to say that you have been DUPED by those revisionists that Stefan have been talking about. Because by reading your "rant" so to speak it sounds like you've been listening to the CBS and CNN News WAY too much... I will agree with you it is an embarrassing mark on our country but, if you don't teach our children about it they will never learn how to stop it from happening again. They will never learn how Americans died for their beliefs whether right or wrong they were all Americans.

Those 4 million slaves were in all of the New England and midwestern states. Like I said all groups have their bad apples.

Regards to all,
MARNE

[ 21. December 2006, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: MARNE ]

 

Hey Mr. J
Just food for thought, but I see it's a "Hornets" nest.
I agree totally with your second paragraph!
It must indeed be difficult to teach kids about a war in which no one but Americans died. Lets not even mention about the cruelty of Andersonville & the Union one in Illinois.
But, some of the (discontent)(jealousy) must lie in the Southern wealth of Cotton.
I've heard...
NOW DON'T EVERYONE JUMP ON ME AT ONCE!
England was going to intervene on the Souths behalf if the South had 1 more victory after Antietam. For the sake of Cotton.
England had before abolished/denounced slavery, and the Emancipation Proclamation by the North prevented this.
The South had 2 more victories after that.
Cotton was then grown in Egypt & India for Englands needs.
It's tough to pick a side, I don't even want to, nor will I.
A sad chapter.
I do like the battle of Hampton Roads, the clash of "Iron-clads", the invention of the armored/rotating turret!
I've a book which names the crucial battles of that conflict. It says they are...
Fort Donelson
Pea Ridge
Antietum
Vicksburg
Gettysburg
Monocacy
Peachtree Creek
Five Forks

 

But then you look at the ante-bellum attempts by the south to force slavery on northern states and wonder how the 'state's rights' argument stands at all. Just look at Dredd Scott, not only was that a breech of the missouri compromise but also a clear illustration of southern laws being forced upon free states.

Where do your figures for the slave population of the north come from? I would also be interested in hearing how are you defining slave here?

Your first point lacks justification and your second point is balls. The first document in the US to ban the atlantic slave trade was a bill placed before congress in 1805 which after a massive palava was effectively enacted in 1808. Thus it became illegal to import slaves into the whole of the US from 1808 which is why the USN spent so much time arresting slave ships.

That isn't an answer. The entire foundation of the Republican party was it's abolitionist agenda, hense the fact they were detested by the south and often referred to as 'Black Republicans.' How can you say that slavery was nothing to do with it and wasn't on Lincolns mind, he was a Republican, why join an abolitionist party if you don't care about slavery? Alright he toned down his views but what alternative was there? He had to do it to appeal to the moderates amongst the party.

As for not putting forth an abolitionist case in 1858, of course not. As I said, appeal to moderates was vital. However, if you look at the Douglas debates he spoke out about the repeal of the Missouri compromise and the proposed extention of slavery to the Western territories. Sure, he didn't preach abolition but he did put forward a massive anti-slavery point of view. I am amazed that you can argue anti-slavery was nothing but a wartime propaganda when it was the platform on which he got into power. NB. I said ANTI-SLAVERY and not abolitionist because the two are very different.

 

I beg to differ. The war was about the rights of states to govern themselves. The emanicpation proclaimation only (and I say only) was made so that the south would not gain two more states into the confederacy. Even this was a danger because there was the threat of Northern states withdrawing their troops because they were not in the war to free slaves.

If you look at the reconstruction period, blacks were not treated anymore better by the Northern troops than by the southern owners. What the south was defending is what in essence is happening in everyday affairs today. The right for individual states to govern themselves.

BTW, the south already recognized that slavery was an outmolded institution but did not know how to get out of it. The north did not provide any help when the south did make attempts to change.

As for the everyday confederate soldier, they did know what they were fighting for and it was not for slavery. If the fight was for slavery, then there would be no confederate army. A large percentage of the troops were not slave owners. The fight was not about slavery. Period.

 

Gentlemen, a great discussion, but clearly getting off topic. Feel free to move the discussion into a new thread (entitled The American Civil War) but as for now, this thread has definately been hijacked.

As for the rest, how about we make a list of what makes a battle great? It might be easier to determine some of the Greatest (yet, not neccesarily important) battles in history.

 

Truly a great stateman Mussolini. I concur. As for a great battle, I would say where strategy overcomes numbers. Say like the battle of Midway.

 

Can I suggest splitting the thread? That way we can keep what we already have.

I guess the next question is whether we are talking 'great' battle or 'important' battle. After all, one of the skirmishes in England during the 9th century can be seen as vitally important because of it's impact on the rise of Alfred the Great which leads on to a lot of what we have today. On the other hand, few of these scraps can be described as 'great' battles in the same way Waterloo or Termopoly can.

 

The title of this thread doesnt help any. It only says 'Top Ten Battles of All Time'.

So, i'll take some iniative here. Lets start by coming up with the Greatest Battles (like Waterloo, Thermopoly) and then (later) we can come up with a list of Important Battles. Now, i'm not sure if we want to make a list of Battles of All Time, or go through the centuries (or grouping of centuries) since there sure have been a lot of battles over the years.

 

Sarge, I've never been duped by anyone when it comes to the study of history, ours or anyone elses. I don't make comments unless I'm sure of what I'm talking about. It makes me sad that anyone could actually be so ignorant as to defend the era of southern slavery in the United States. Do you realize that's what you were saying? I sure hope not.

Indentured servants in New England were Europeans, mostly from England, who willingly signed a contract and placed themselves in service to a particular person for a period of seven years. After seven years they were no longer bound to their contract and could go where they pleased and start a new life. These young men did this willingly because it was the only way they could afford to make the trip to the new world. How you could possibly insinuate that these people were slaves is beyond me.

Later

 

Mr. J
I did here tell of indentured servents, share-croppers, field hands (whatever) mentioned in Ohio until 1881.
Until you explained the circumstances under which this evolved, I did think them to be ie...slaves. You should tell more!
For the simple fact that most don't know, and readily accuse in the face of ignorance.
Many had no where to go, and nothing else to do, and were subjutated to what they knew best. To feed their families etc..
I'm glad you're here, for until now, I was wrong.
Humble apologies.
Revolution is no way to dissapprove, and for the other side, a deaf ear is no way to govern!
One must have some iota of worth for the sacrifices made and the taxes paid.
Taxiation without representation?
Sound familiar?
I cannot accuse either side.
Not to mention relatives in Texas, South Carolina, Georgia and the rest totally North!
Believe me, this conversation comes up...often.

 

Gentlemen, please, last reminder before i close this thread. That was the last warning. Take your discussion of the American Civil War (or whatever you want to call it) to a new thread. This thread is for discussion of the Greatest/Most Important Battles of All Time. One more post about the American Civil War, and the Panzer Penguin will be unleashed! (And trust me, you dont want to know what the Panzer Penguin can do!)

 

Alexander the Great at river Granicus 333 BC.
The Roman Legions during the Darcian Campaign of 105-6 AD.
The soldiers of Byzantium in the tenth century full.
The Vikings at the battle of Stikletad in 1030.
The Normans until Antioch 1097.
The 15th century English Knights of Crecy 1346, Pointiers 1356, Agincourt 1415.
The Condottieri of Italy, the late 15th century.
The Terico of Spain early 17th century.
Cromwells "Ironsides" 1643-1650.
Frederick the Great 1740-1786.
Grande Armee France 1805-1806 unbeatable.
Then we get to the civil war in America which is "Taboo".

 

Hey J,

I'm am NOT defending slavery, you might aswell give that up. What I defending is the overall southern cause in which the Confederacy was completely in the right to do and inwhich every liberal congressman and every Northern historian have tried to discredit them for doing. However, there is NO way you can prove that they weren't in the right. As well as for the rest of those historians out there that believe that Secession is an was illegal you'd better go to West Point and look up William Rawles book. Rawles taught at West Pont in 1826 and he laid out a five step process inwhich a state could properly secede from the Union. All of the West Point cadets were being taught that Secession was right for a little over twenty years prior to the war.

By the way a slave is a slave is a slave, if you are bound to that person then you are a slave sorry there is no difference.

Regards,
MARNE

 

Right, lets continue this over here:

http://www.ww2forums.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=39;t=000204

Leave this thread for what it is intended.

 

I'm not so sure. Keep in mind that a) there were victories the first crusade, notably Jerusalem and b) the influence of Norman nobles in Southern Italy continued for decades after. Not to mention their impact in Byzantium. But it does get blinking complicated with the Norman/Frank issue.

 

I'm not so sure. Keep in mind that a) there were victories the first crusade, notably Jerusalem and b) the influence of Norman nobles in Southern Italy continued for decades after. Not to mention their impact in Byzantium. But it does get blinking complicated with the Norman/Frank issue.

 

Seriously,it would take a month to come up with the ten greatest battles of all time,,what makes a battle great?

I will give my opinion on the ten greatest wars and series of wars of all time.

In no particular order and for differing reasons.

WWI
WWII
THE TAIPING REBELLION
THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
THE NAPOLEONIC WARS
THE CRUSADES(aka.all the wars against the ottomans)
PELOPONNESIAN WAR
AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDANCE(seven years war?)
CHARLEMAGNES WARS
THE ROMAN CONQUESTS


I'm suprised you dont have Megiddoo on your list.