|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 9, 2017 12:00:16 GMT
....and why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2018 10:11:38 GMT
Don't know how many people are aware about this, but long long time back, we also had a great scholar named chanakya, who collapsed an empire of nanda king, and that was the start of mauryan empire in subcontinent, the only powerful empire which Indian subcontinent can boast of in their history en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Nanda_EmpireApart from that, for me, it is battle of teutoburg, as it led to the collapse of western roman empire.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2018 20:08:31 GMT
In the history of Ukraine's this Khmelnytsky Uprising(1648–1657)! Then the Ukrainian Cossacks and peasants, albeit with difficulty but managed to win the Catholic Poland and the gentry! In Russian history - Great Northern War (1700–1721). With the end of war in Europe arose a new Empire, Russia, having access to the Baltic sea and has a powerful army and Navy. I'm fully agree with Diamond, Khmelnytsky's era get many profits. But, can we estimate fruitfulls of any war?! Like Diamond said the best war is unstarted war! We can't build successful of ours on someone's death! ..War could be reckon like something great untill it had crawled to the porch of our home...
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Jan 12, 2018 20:22:27 GMT
The problem is that after Khmelnytsky came traitors who wanted to destroy him undertakings. But the results of the Northern War put everything in its place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2018 20:32:02 GMT
The problem is that after Khmelnytsky came traitors who wanted to destroy him undertakings. But the results of the Northern War put everything in its place. Hyenas and rats always come after to taste results of someone's braveness, spirit and painfully victory...
|
|
geeboy1
New Member
Posts: 18
Likes: 20
|
Post by geeboy1 on Jan 25, 2018 22:36:38 GMT
World War 2. The birth of Nukes
|
|
DrazaMihailovic
New Member
He was,and still is,a sexy man.
Posts: 6
Likes: 3
Ethnicity: European
Country: Serbia
Region: Central
Location: Belgrade,Zvezdara
Politics: Right wing
Religion: Christian
Relationship Status: Single
Hero: Joakim Brodén
Age: 14
|
Post by DrazaMihailovic on Feb 11, 2018 6:28:08 GMT
Maybe it was the Russian Revolutionary Civil war because it turned Russia's system completely different.Not only that,but also the influence the Reds made when they won(so called World-Wide Revolution).I mean it worked for my country.To be honest there wasn't a war which was successful,unless it worked out for everyone in the end and didn't do much damage.
|
|
Dominicanese
Full Member
Posts: 348
Likes: 358
Country: Dominican Republic
Ancestry: Western Europe, West Africa, The Caribbean
Taxonomy: Atlantid + Sudanid
Y-DNA: R-L51
mtDNA: L1c2b1
Age: 25
|
Post by Dominicanese on Feb 11, 2018 12:51:14 GMT
idk
i guess the haitian revolution
the odds were big
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 17, 2018 23:33:52 GMT
I hope you don't mind if I copy my answer from the other thread: So it was actually a war against a war. It certainly involved an enormous amount of saber-rattling on my part, and I have to admit, I was ready to kill whoever I needed to kill to win that war. But the way in which I communicated my intent without fear, without any weapons in my hands, seemed to make the Afrikaners realize that they would lose. There may even still be a recording of the speech I gave them somewhere; though it would likely be hidden away or even destroyed. Afterwards it took decades before I could even talk about it.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 18, 2018 1:02:02 GMT
I hope you don't mind if I copy my answer from the other thread: So it was actually a war against a war. It certainly involved an enormous amount of saber-rattling on my part, and I have to admit, I was ready to kill whoever I needed to kill to win that war. But the way in which I communicated my intent without fear, without any weapons in my hands, seemed to make the Afrikaners realize that they would lose. There may even still be a recording of the speech I gave them somewhere; though it would likely be hidden away or even destroyed. Afterwards it took decades before I could even talk about it. Copying is fine And you only participated in one war?
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 12, 2018 18:25:16 GMT
I hope you don't mind if I copy my answer from the other thread: So it was actually a war against a war. It certainly involved an enormous amount of saber-rattling on my part, and I have to admit, I was ready to kill whoever I needed to kill to win that war. But the way in which I communicated my intent without fear, without any weapons in my hands, seemed to make the Afrikaners realize that they would lose. There may even still be a recording of the speech I gave them somewhere; though it would likely be hidden away or even destroyed. Afterwards it took decades before I could even talk about it. Copying is fine And you only participated in one war? Well I've been trying to end the war on drugs. But not successfully
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,732
Likes: 1,765
Meta-Ethnicity: Celtic and Germanic
Ethnicity: Northwestern European American
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 31
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Apr 19, 2018 15:24:33 GMT
The cold war because we avoided a nuclear apocalypse.
|
|
Hyeokgeose
New Member
Posts: 5
Likes: 7
Meta-Ethnicity: European and Asian
Ethnicity: Various European groups and Korean
Country: United States
Region: Dixie
Location: FL
Politics: Pragmatic Compromiser
Religion: Christian
Relationship Status: Single
Hero: My mother
Age: 21
Philosophy: Individualist
|
Post by Hyeokgeose on Jun 23, 2018 5:36:58 GMT
Ok here's my opinion (this was never my favorite subject so can only recall bits and pieces ) It was the war between the south and the north states. It was a war about slavery and the north wanted no slavery and south wanted slavery. The north won the war. I believe this was during Lincoln's time when he also wanted to end slavery but some didn't like that and killed him after the war :/ Unfortunately, like any other war, the American Civil War was not that simple. The South, for most of the people fighting in the war, fought because they were defending against an invading army, from the North. Once upon a time, I thought the same thing that you and many others do: that the war was simply a matter of the south wanting slavery and the north wanting to free the slaves. That notion could not be further from the truth. To keep this post short, I'll say: - The leaders of the north during the war couldn't care less about slavery, but did pander to garner the support of abolitionists/"radical republicans". The emancipation proclamation only freed Southern slaves. - Most Southerners didn't own slaves and couldn't care any less about the interests of plantation owners (some sources will contradict this, by assuming every member of a family owned slaves even if one relative, even distant, owned even one slave). - From primary sources from the soldiers that fought in the war, Southerners saw the army of the North as being aggressive invaders, which isn't far from the truth: the Northern army did indeed burn entire towns and ruin the livelihoods of families. The worst of these campaigns would be Sherman's March to the Sea. - By studying the rhetoric of the secessionist speeches, one can figure out that states' rights was the cause of secession, with one example of an issue being slavery, which they felt slavery was a states' right to determine (i.e. the belief that states should be in charge of determining whether or not slavery could be practiced). - Economic restriction, notably taxes, also contributed to the desire to secede and future economic sanctions would help fuel the South's desire to continue fighting. As for the death of Abraham Lincoln: he was a tyrant, both during the war and after. There were a lot of abuses by Northerners who occupied the South during Reconstruction. During and after the war, there were also violations of constitutional rights, such as rights to freedom of speech and the rights of states to exist as states (during the earlier years of reconstruction, Southern states were occupied military territories). So, he garnered very negative feedback and unfortunately this likely lead to his assassination (he upset the wrong people). Not that killing him was justified. Also, note that I don't support slavery. It is the right of all American men and women to receive full constitutional rights, which were not afforded to slaves (otherwise they would not be slaves). Unfortunately, I'll say again, the leaders of the North did not care about slaves and had to be forced to take action by the Abolition Movement (which a large part of the Abolition Movement took place in the South, notably the Underground Railroad). That's a very short summary that scrapes the tip of the iceberg. I started learning about all this two years ago, going from believing the CSA was an evil entity and that the USA was a heroic entity, to knowing that the CSA was not the bad team that we're indoctrinated into believing and that the USA wasn't the hero that we're indoctrinated into believing them to be. Edit: Also, slavery was a dying practice, even in the South. So, the American Civil War was not a war that I would consider "successful" and I would say it was more of a set back for the nation.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 23, 2018 5:45:26 GMT
Ok here's my opinion (this was never my favorite subject so can only recall bits and pieces ) It was the war between the south and the north states. It was a war about slavery and the north wanted no slavery and south wanted slavery. The north won the war. I believe this was during Lincoln's time when he also wanted to end slavery but some didn't like that and killed him after the war :/ Unfortunately, like any other war, the American Civil War was not that simple. The South, for most of the people fighting in the war, fought because they were defending against an invading army, from the North. Once upon a time, I thought the same thing that you and many others do: that the war was simply a matter of the south wanting slavery and the north wanting to free the slaves. That notion could not be further from the truth. To keep this post short, I'll say: - The leaders of the north during the war couldn't care less about slavery, but did pander to garner the support of abolitionists/"radical republicans". The emancipation proclamation only freed Southern slaves. - Most Southerners didn't own slaves and couldn't care any less about the interests of plantation owners (some sources will contradict this, by assuming every member of a family owned slaves even if one relative, even distant, owned even one slave). - From primary sources from the soldiers that fought in the war, Southerners saw the army of the North as being aggressive invaders, which isn't far from the truth: the Northern army did indeed burn entire towns and ruin the livelihoods of families. The worst of these campaigns would be Sherman's March to the Sea. - By studying the rhetoric of the secessionist speeches, one can figure out that states' rights was the cause of secession, with one example of an issue being slavery, which they felt slavery was a states' right to determine (i.e. the belief that states should be in charge of determining whether or not slavery could be practiced). - Economic restriction, notably taxes, also contributed to the desire to secede and future economic sanctions would help fuel the South's desire to continue fighting. As for the death of Abraham Lincoln: he was a tyrant, both during the war and after. There were a lot of abuses by Northerners who occupied the South during Reconstruction. During and after the war, there were also violations of constitutional rights, such as rights to freedom of speech and the rights of states to exist as states (during the earlier years of reconstruction, Southern states were occupied military territories). So, he garnered very negative feedback and unfortunately this likely lead to his assassination (he upset the wrong people). Not that killing him was justified. Also, note that I don't support slavery. It is the right of all American men and women to receive full constitutional rights, which were not afforded to slaves (otherwise they would not be slaves). Unfortunately, I'll say again, the leaders of the North did not care about slaves and had to be forced to take action by the Abolition Movement (which a large part of the Abolition Movement took place in the South, notably the Underground Railroad). That's a very short summary that scrapes the tip of the iceberg. I started learning about all this two years ago, going from believing the CSA was an evil entity and that the USA was a heroic entity, to knowing that the CSA was not the bad team that we're indoctrinated into believing and that the USA wasn't the hero that we're indoctrinated into believing them to be. Edit: Also, slavery was a dying practice, even in the South. So, the American Civil War was not a war that I would consider "successful" and I would say it was more of a set back for the nation. I also heard some negative reviews of Lincoln. But I always assumed it was a plantation owner person who shot him because Lincoln abolished slavery basically. Shrug
|
|