Just out of interest, which war/historical conflict/military campaign interests you the most, in terms of reading about the history or it's appearance in fiction?
If you are into it, I'd recommend watching BBC's The World at War. Its basically the greatest documentary of all time. Hell, I'd watch it even if you didn't like WW2 because its so good. 24 episodes, they cover everything from pre-war, to post war. They cover all aspect, military, political, economical...they have POV's of all countries and since it was made in the 70's they have A LOT of great interviews from people who were actually prominent in WW2. Pretty sure Karl Dornitz is interviewed in it, among lots of others.
Its pretty funny to watch that and compare it to some of the history channel ones lol. (They have you believe WW2 starts on December 7, 1941)
@comicstooge: Not to mention a lot of stuff that went bang were dropped all over the country :P, Have you seen Vietnam in HD? I would really recommend it. The opening credit roll is pulling as well as the detailed action and homefront events that went on.
WWII is such a broad topic and time period with plenty to explore and read about. From all the different campaigns and fronts, to the various social and cultural impacts, to the fact that nearly every nation on Earth including my own has their unique accounts to relate about this time in history...it really is the greatest (and I use this word free of moral implications) conflict in human history.
Second place would probably go to the Iraq War/Second Gulf War. This one's still a very recent conflict and its implications remain important, and I've always found Iraq War memoirs-of-duty to be very fascinating. Accounts of this conflict always read like it was a new generation fighting a new type of war.
@fallschirmjager: The War, by Ken Burns is an amazing WW2 documentary, though not encompassing the homefront events exactly there is just a lot of awesome tales, and footage of key battles in the war.
French Revolution. I mean the whole thing around Napoleon and what he did is quite interesting for me because after it come a lot of typical actions in other countries as well. It's the start of a movement which later spreads on.
But in the same time I like the most talking about a thing that most of you probably don't know - the Ottoman Empire's enslavement of the Balkans. My country,Bulgaria,was almost 500 years under the rule of the Ottoman Empire which was full of raping our women,killing hte people that opposed them and they took small boys to brainwash them and make them soldiers of their Empire.
French Revolution. I mean the whole thing around Napoleon and what he did is quite interesting for me because after it come a lot of typical actions in other countries as well. It's the start of a movement which later spreads on.
But in the same time I like the most talking about a thing that most of you probably don't know - the Ottoman Empire's enslavement of the Balkans. My country,Bulgaria,was almost 500 years under the rule of the Ottoman Empire which was full of raping our women,killing hte people that opposed them and they took small boys to brainwash them and make them soldiers of their Empire.
The French Revolution was actually from 1789 to 1799 which was really spun out of the Enlightenment and was the precursor to the Napoleonic Wars (which started 1803). They're not exactly the same thing.
French Revolution. I mean the whole thing around Napoleon and what he did is quite interesting for me because after it come a lot of typical actions in other countries as well. It's the start of a movement which later spreads on.
But in the same time I like the most talking about a thing that most of you probably don't know - the Ottoman Empire's enslavement of the Balkans. My country,Bulgaria,was almost 500 years under the rule of the Ottoman Empire which was full of raping our women,killing hte people that opposed them and they took small boys to brainwash them and make them soldiers of their Empire.
The French Revolution was actually from 1789 to 1799 which was really spun out of the Enlightenment and was the precursor to the Napoleonic Wars (which started 1803). They're not exactly the same thing.
And yet they are connected. Because Napoleon gets the leading role in the end of the French Revolution if I'm not mistaken and later on things continue. That whole era as a whole is a thing I find interesting but to say I am not that good with years.
French Revolution. I mean the whole thing around Napoleon and what he did is quite interesting for me because after it come a lot of typical actions in other countries as well. It's the start of a movement which later spreads on.
But in the same time I like the most talking about a thing that most of you probably don't know - the Ottoman Empire's enslavement of the Balkans. My country,Bulgaria,was almost 500 years under the rule of the Ottoman Empire which was full of raping our women,killing hte people that opposed them and they took small boys to brainwash them and make them soldiers of their Empire.
The French Revolution was actually from 1789 to 1799 which was really spun out of the Enlightenment and was the precursor to the Napoleonic Wars (which started 1803). They're not exactly the same thing.
And yet they are connected. Because Napoleon gets the leading role in the end of the French Revolution if I'm not mistaken and later on things continue. That whole era as a whole is a thing I find interesting but to say I am not that good with years.
French Revolution. I mean the whole thing around Napoleon and what he did is quite interesting for me because after it come a lot of typical actions in other countries as well. It's the start of a movement which later spreads on.
But in the same time I like the most talking about a thing that most of you probably don't know - the Ottoman Empire's enslavement of the Balkans. My country,Bulgaria,was almost 500 years under the rule of the Ottoman Empire which was full of raping our women,killing hte people that opposed them and they took small boys to brainwash them and make them soldiers of their Empire.
The French Revolution was actually from 1789 to 1799 which was really spun out of the Enlightenment and was the precursor to the Napoleonic Wars (which started 1803). They're not exactly the same thing.
And yet they are connected. Because Napoleon gets the leading role in the end of the French Revolution if I'm not mistaken and later on things continue. That whole era as a whole is a thing I find interesting but to say I am not that good with years.
Ah, no worries man. :)
Yeah they are directly related. Napoleon only came to power because of the revolution. Had there not been one, he would have not been able to become Consul and later Emperor of France (funny thing is, he was actually born in Corsica, which was still under Italian rule when he was born. France later annexed it)
Furthermore the European powers basically viewed both the French Republic and the French Empire as the same thing. Both were a threat to the power of the other eurpeaon monarchs and so they continually declared war on both state.
Its pretty funny considering a lot of people see Napolean as something like Hitler only 150 years earlier and yet it was the other countries of Europe that were starting most of the wars.
French Revolution. I mean the whole thing around Napoleon and what he did is quite interesting for me because after it come a lot of typical actions in other countries as well. It's the start of a movement which later spreads on.
But in the same time I like the most talking about a thing that most of you probably don't know - the Ottoman Empire's enslavement of the Balkans. My country,Bulgaria,was almost 500 years under the rule of the Ottoman Empire which was full of raping our women,killing hte people that opposed them and they took small boys to brainwash them and make them soldiers of their Empire.
The French Revolution was actually from 1789 to 1799 which was really spun out of the Enlightenment and was the precursor to the Napoleonic Wars (which started 1803). They're not exactly the same thing.
And yet they are connected. Because Napoleon gets the leading role in the end of the French Revolution if I'm not mistaken and later on things continue. That whole era as a whole is a thing I find interesting but to say I am not that good with years.
Ah, no worries man. :)
Yeah they are directly related. Napoleon only came to power because of the revolution. Had there not been one, he would have not been able to become Consul and later Emperor of France (funny thing is, he was actually born in Corsica, which was still under Italian rule when he was born. France later annexed it)
Furthermore the European powers basically viewed both the French Republic and the French Empire as the same thing. Both were a threat to the power of the other eurpeaon monarchs and so they continually declared war on both state.
Its pretty funny considering a lot of people see Napolean as something like Hitler only 150 years earlier and yet it was the other countries of Europe that were starting most of the wars.
Yes,that's what I was trying to say. The two things are pretty related. If the first didn't happen so wouldn't have the second.
And as always people have different opinions on things. I,myself,am not that big of a fan of Napoleon but I don't see him as Hitler or anything of that kind, the wars that he was part of weren't exactly started by him(except the war with Russia) and he was just part of them. And the other thing is that the things he has done are not even remotely the same and as bad as the things Hitler had done.
@tdk_1997: The funny part about the Russian invasion was that, it was pretty justified. Russia had signed an alliance with France the year before and Napolean and Alexander had met personally. Napolean had even told him how the Grande Armee was able to move so quickly in past campaigns, by foraging the local land for food instead of waiting for the baggage trains (Russia later used this knowledge against them by scorching their lands as they've done before against Sweden)
The reason Napolean invaded was because Russia violated the Alliance by continuing to trade with Great Britain, despite agreeing not too.
@tdk_1997: The funny part about the Russian invasion was that, it was pretty justified. Russia had signed an alliance with France the year before and Napolean and Alexander had met personally. Napolean had even told him how the Grande Armee was able to move so quickly in past campaigns, by foraging the local land for food instead of waiting for the baggage trains (Russia later used this knowledge against them by scorching their lands as they've done before against Sweden)
The reason Napolean invaded was because Russia violated the Alliance by continuing to trade with Great Britain, despite agreeing not too.
This is definitely something I wasn't aware of. I guess you learn new stuff every day. I am a russophile a bit but when I am not having full knowledge of a situation I don pick sides and here I thought that Napoleon was tresspassing but I guess it was reasonable.
Hmm……what interest me the most?… I guess it would be the Slave trade i never understanded why human beings would enslave other human beings then trade them -_-
Log in to comment