Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
Author Message
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,038
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 199
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #81
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(03-16-2015 11:12 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  
(03-16-2015 10:38 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Yea Barbarossa had nothing to do with it, but it was at least a bigger mistake, IMO.

I often wondered myself what would have happened if Japan had tried to invade Hawaii. I think there was a thread on here about that some time back.

IMHO Hitler's biggest mistake was declaring war on the United States when he didn't need to. Roosevelt had even less chance of getting a war started with Hitler after the Pearl Harbor attack then before. Germany hadn't attacked us so there would be no increase in the already low public demand for war with Germany, especially when we had just been attacked by another power. The American public would have questioned Roosevelt even continuing Lend-Lease during a war with Japan.

As for Japan invading Hawai'i, there were two options for them, neither all that great. They could invade Oahu directly, but there was still substantial American ground forces on the island. It would have been bloody and only netted some really old battleships that Japan couldn't invest the resources to repair and frankly didn't even fit into Japan's battleship naval beliefs (Japanese battleships of the teens and 20's were designed more toward speed, American battleships of the same period, the "standard battleships" which all the PH battleships were part of, were intentionally short and slow since we wanted more armor protection).

The other option was to invade the other, less well defended, islands around Oahu; and bring in bombers to pound US forces on Oahu or threaten any American counter invasion attempts.

Assuming the success of either operation, the Japanese would have had to garrison and supply the islands at the end of a very long supply chain and would have found the waters crawling with US submarines. Japan had a terrible record on anti-submarine warfare so the subs would have had a field day against Japanese supply ships.

The Kido Butai would have had to commit at least two carriers to stay in Hawai'ian waters during and after the invasion until substantial land based planes reached the area; risking valuable carriers against hungry US subs and potential US carrier counter-strikes; and also denying two valuable carriers against capturing Malaya/Singapore, The Philippines and the oil rich Dutch East Indies.

Yea I don't know why Hitler felt he needed to declare war on the US, didn't seem smart. Though if he had done so, it would have taken a long time for the US to do anything about it if Hitler could have stacked his forces in Western Europe instead of on the Eastern Front.

On the Japanese point I agree, it would have been tough for the Japs to re-supply and reinforce. I couldn't remember off-hand how many land forces the US had in Hawaii at the time.
03-16-2015 11:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BleedsHuskieRed Offline
All American
*

Posts: 9,953
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 78
I Root For: NIU
Location: Schaumburg

Donators
Post: #82
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
I learned about the USS Liberty incident yesterday. Israel attacked a US signals intelligence ship during the 6 Day War.
03-16-2015 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,240
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 775
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #83
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(03-16-2015 11:22 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(03-16-2015 11:12 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  
(03-16-2015 10:38 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Yea Barbarossa had nothing to do with it, but it was at least a bigger mistake, IMO.

I often wondered myself what would have happened if Japan had tried to invade Hawaii. I think there was a thread on here about that some time back.

IMHO Hitler's biggest mistake was declaring war on the United States when he didn't need to. Roosevelt had even less chance of getting a war started with Hitler after the Pearl Harbor attack then before. Germany hadn't attacked us so there would be no increase in the already low public demand for war with Germany, especially when we had just been attacked by another power. The American public would have questioned Roosevelt even continuing Lend-Lease during a war with Japan.

As for Japan invading Hawai'i, there were two options for them, neither all that great. They could invade Oahu directly, but there was still substantial American ground forces on the island. It would have been bloody and only netted some really old battleships that Japan couldn't invest the resources to repair and frankly didn't even fit into Japan's battleship naval beliefs (Japanese battleships of the teens and 20's were designed more toward speed, American battleships of the same period, the "standard battleships" which all the PH battleships were part of, were intentionally short and slow since we wanted more armor protection).

The other option was to invade the other, less well defended, islands around Oahu; and bring in bombers to pound US forces on Oahu or threaten any American counter invasion attempts.

Assuming the success of either operation, the Japanese would have had to garrison and supply the islands at the end of a very long supply chain and would have found the waters crawling with US submarines. Japan had a terrible record on anti-submarine warfare so the subs would have had a field day against Japanese supply ships.

The Kido Butai would have had to commit at least two carriers to stay in Hawai'ian waters during and after the invasion until substantial land based planes reached the area; risking valuable carriers against hungry US subs and potential US carrier counter-strikes; and also denying two valuable carriers against capturing Malaya/Singapore, The Philippines and the oil rich Dutch East Indies.

Yea I don't know why Hitler felt he needed to declare war on the US, didn't seem smart. Though if he had done so, it would have taken a long time for the US to do anything about it if Hitler could have stacked his forces in Western Europe instead of on the Eastern Front.

On the Japanese point I agree, it would have been tough for the Japs to re-supply and reinforce. I couldn't remember off-hand how many land forces the US had in Hawaii at the time.

Technically Hitler didn't declare war on the U.S.. We wanted into the war with Germany and had a destroyer off of the coast of Greenland pursue and depth charge a U-boat (w/no convoy in sight) until the U-boat fired back. Then the war sort of got declared on both sides. But the German high command had issued orders not to fire on U.S. Navy Vessels unless fired upon and in self defense. This kind of stuff has gone on for ages when war needs to be declared. It happened again as recently as Viet Nam (Gulf of Tonkin) and almost happened again over the Pueblo.
03-16-2015 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BleedsHuskieRed Offline
All American
*

Posts: 9,953
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 78
I Root For: NIU
Location: Schaumburg

Donators
Post: #84
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(03-16-2015 02:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-16-2015 11:22 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(03-16-2015 11:12 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  
(03-16-2015 10:38 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Yea Barbarossa had nothing to do with it, but it was at least a bigger mistake, IMO.

I often wondered myself what would have happened if Japan had tried to invade Hawaii. I think there was a thread on here about that some time back.

IMHO Hitler's biggest mistake was declaring war on the United States when he didn't need to. Roosevelt had even less chance of getting a war started with Hitler after the Pearl Harbor attack then before. Germany hadn't attacked us so there would be no increase in the already low public demand for war with Germany, especially when we had just been attacked by another power. The American public would have questioned Roosevelt even continuing Lend-Lease during a war with Japan.

As for Japan invading Hawai'i, there were two options for them, neither all that great. They could invade Oahu directly, but there was still substantial American ground forces on the island. It would have been bloody and only netted some really old battleships that Japan couldn't invest the resources to repair and frankly didn't even fit into Japan's battleship naval beliefs (Japanese battleships of the teens and 20's were designed more toward speed, American battleships of the same period, the "standard battleships" which all the PH battleships were part of, were intentionally short and slow since we wanted more armor protection).

The other option was to invade the other, less well defended, islands around Oahu; and bring in bombers to pound US forces on Oahu or threaten any American counter invasion attempts.

Assuming the success of either operation, the Japanese would have had to garrison and supply the islands at the end of a very long supply chain and would have found the waters crawling with US submarines. Japan had a terrible record on anti-submarine warfare so the subs would have had a field day against Japanese supply ships.

The Kido Butai would have had to commit at least two carriers to stay in Hawai'ian waters during and after the invasion until substantial land based planes reached the area; risking valuable carriers against hungry US subs and potential US carrier counter-strikes; and also denying two valuable carriers against capturing Malaya/Singapore, The Philippines and the oil rich Dutch East Indies.

Yea I don't know why Hitler felt he needed to declare war on the US, didn't seem smart. Though if he had done so, it would have taken a long time for the US to do anything about it if Hitler could have stacked his forces in Western Europe instead of on the Eastern Front.

On the Japanese point I agree, it would have been tough for the Japs to re-supply and reinforce. I couldn't remember off-hand how many land forces the US had in Hawaii at the time.

Technically Hitler didn't declare war on the U.S.. We wanted into the war with Germany and had a destroyer off of the coast of Greenland pursue and depth charge a U-boat (w/no convoy in sight) until the U-boat fired back. Then the war sort of got declared on both sides. But the German high command had issued orders not to fire on U.S. Navy Vessels unless fired upon and in self defense. This kind of stuff has gone on for ages when war needs to be declared. It happened again as recently as Viet Nam (Gulf of Tonkin) and almost happened again over the Pueblo.
Uggghhhh....
MR. CHARGE D'AFFAIRES:

The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German sub-marines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

Accept, Mr. Charge d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.

December 11, 1941.
03-17-2015 09:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,240
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 775
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #85
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(03-17-2015 09:25 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  
(03-16-2015 02:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-16-2015 11:22 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(03-16-2015 11:12 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  
(03-16-2015 10:38 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Yea Barbarossa had nothing to do with it, but it was at least a bigger mistake, IMO.

I often wondered myself what would have happened if Japan had tried to invade Hawaii. I think there was a thread on here about that some time back.

IMHO Hitler's biggest mistake was declaring war on the United States when he didn't need to. Roosevelt had even less chance of getting a war started with Hitler after the Pearl Harbor attack then before. Germany hadn't attacked us so there would be no increase in the already low public demand for war with Germany, especially when we had just been attacked by another power. The American public would have questioned Roosevelt even continuing Lend-Lease during a war with Japan.

As for Japan invading Hawai'i, there were two options for them, neither all that great. They could invade Oahu directly, but there was still substantial American ground forces on the island. It would have been bloody and only netted some really old battleships that Japan couldn't invest the resources to repair and frankly didn't even fit into Japan's battleship naval beliefs (Japanese battleships of the teens and 20's were designed more toward speed, American battleships of the same period, the "standard battleships" which all the PH battleships were part of, were intentionally short and slow since we wanted more armor protection).

The other option was to invade the other, less well defended, islands around Oahu; and bring in bombers to pound US forces on Oahu or threaten any American counter invasion attempts.

Assuming the success of either operation, the Japanese would have had to garrison and supply the islands at the end of a very long supply chain and would have found the waters crawling with US submarines. Japan had a terrible record on anti-submarine warfare so the subs would have had a field day against Japanese supply ships.

The Kido Butai would have had to commit at least two carriers to stay in Hawai'ian waters during and after the invasion until substantial land based planes reached the area; risking valuable carriers against hungry US subs and potential US carrier counter-strikes; and also denying two valuable carriers against capturing Malaya/Singapore, The Philippines and the oil rich Dutch East Indies.

Yea I don't know why Hitler felt he needed to declare war on the US, didn't seem smart. Though if he had done so, it would have taken a long time for the US to do anything about it if Hitler could have stacked his forces in Western Europe instead of on the Eastern Front.

On the Japanese point I agree, it would have been tough for the Japs to re-supply and reinforce. I couldn't remember off-hand how many land forces the US had in Hawaii at the time.

Technically Hitler didn't declare war on the U.S.. We wanted into the war with Germany and had a destroyer off of the coast of Greenland pursue and depth charge a U-boat (w/no convoy in sight) until the U-boat fired back. Then the war sort of got declared on both sides. But the German high command had issued orders not to fire on U.S. Navy Vessels unless fired upon and in self defense. This kind of stuff has gone on for ages when war needs to be declared. It happened again as recently as Viet Nam (Gulf of Tonkin) and almost happened again over the Pueblo.
Uggghhhh....
MR. CHARGE D'AFFAIRES:

The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German sub-marines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

Accept, Mr. Charge d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.

December 11, 1941.

Come December 7, come December 11, and that's the way the dice fly for an unofficial alliance with Japan. Like I said the declarations followed months of provocation. Berlin had issued orders to its fleet not to attack U.S. Military Vessels. Of course there was an eventual declaration and you found it, but my use of "technically" was more in reference to it was not his original intent to do so. We picked the fight. It's semantics. Needless to say I'm glad we picked the fight as it was one that needed to be fought. It's worth digging into Roosevelt's communiques with Pentagon staff members, particularly in the Department of the Navy. You might also for giggles check out the sabotage at the New York docks that was suddenly cleared up when Lucky Luciano was asked for help. The failed spy ring and saboteurs that were rounded up following a U boat drop off of New England as it also predates the declaration of war. There was a lot of provocation on both sides. Formal declarations seldom signify anything to the contrary of the current state of affairs. The Japanese tardy declaration being the extreme case to the contrary. But even then we knew the Japanese were building up for a strike somewhere and knew that U.S. assets might be in harms way due to the embargo. BTW, I think it was the Greer that was involved in the incident off of Greenland.
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2015 01:26 PM by JRsec.)
03-17-2015 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,240
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 775
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #86
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(03-16-2015 01:07 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  I learned about the USS Liberty incident yesterday. Israel attacked a US signals intelligence ship during the 6 Day War.
The attack on the USS Liberty was hardly a case of mistaken identity as the Israelis claimed. They have always relied upon our assistance, but have never trusted us. Shortly after the Gulf War started I was in Haifa. I was looking at Mt. Hermon which was visible that day when I noticed off to the Northeast what looked like cooling ponds and a reactor. The guide who was with us wanted my film after I snapped a picture in that direction. Most tours in Israel will have an Arab driver and an Israeli guide. Many of the Israeli guides are former Mossad. They like us, they need us, but they don't trust us. Saddam Hussein had targeted Haifa with SCUDS because he claimed they had a reactor there. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but I was out a roll of film nonetheless.
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2015 01:07 PM by JRsec.)
03-17-2015 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Offline
The Black Knight of The Deplorables

Posts: 9,620
Joined: Oct 2013
I Root For: Army, SFU
Location: Michie Stadium 1945
Post: #87
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
The Capture of Jerusalem (1099).

Any battle between the small, underdog Eastern European rulers against the bloodthirsty, conquering Ottomans. Men like Skanderbeg, Hunyadi, Stephen the Great of Moldavia are personal heroes of mine. Their courageous against a near unstoppable war machine is inspiring. If only Western Europe decided to intervene, the problems of the 1990's may have been avoided.

Interestingly, none of my ancestors stem from the Balkans. Most of my blood is English and Western European with a dash of Slovak and Ukrainian mixed in on my father's side. I really wish to take the time to learn more about the culture and fairy tales of my ancestors.

The American Revolution will forever be the biggest influence on me. The numbers of times that America came this close to falling apart is staggering. As Washington declared: "The hand of Providence was involved" and it is impossible to refuse in my opinion. Generals like Nathaniel Greene and "Mad" Anthony Wayne deserve more respect and remembrance.

The Siege of Malta (1565).

The American Civil War or the War of Northern Aggression (this Yankee won't argue that!)

Colonial-Indian battles especially on the East Coast.

The War of the Spanish Succession. The Duke of Marlborough and Eugene of Savoy are the best duo since David and Jonathan.

The Thirty Years War. A tragic case of policies destroying a fractured geographical entity.

The Crusades.

The Eighty Years War. One siege lasted 4 years!
03-17-2015 11:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BleedsHuskieRed Offline
All American
*

Posts: 9,953
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 78
I Root For: NIU
Location: Schaumburg

Donators
Post: #88
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(03-17-2015 01:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-16-2015 01:07 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  I learned about the USS Liberty incident yesterday. Israel attacked a US signals intelligence ship during the 6 Day War.
The attack on the USS Liberty was hardly a case of mistaken identity as the Israelis claimed. They have always relied upon our assistance, but have never trusted us. Shortly after the Gulf War started I was in Haifa. I was looking at Mt. Hermon which was visible that day when I noticed off to the Northeast what looked like cooling ponds and a reactor. The guide who was with us wanted my film after I snapped a picture in that direction. Most tours in Israel will have an Arab driver and an Israeli guide. Many of the Israeli guides are former Mossad. They like us, they need us, but they don't trust us. Saddam Hussein had targeted Haifa with SCUDS because he claimed they had a reactor there. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but I was out a roll of film nonetheless.
Based on what I read, I agree that there is little chance it was mistaken identity. Too much identifying info on the ship for the Israelis to not know it was American.
03-18-2015 09:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ecumbh1999 Offline
Keeper of the Code
*

Posts: 11,774
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 255
I Root For: East Carolina
Location:
Post: #89
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(07-17-2014 11:17 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Kursk

Not only the greatest land battle in the history of the World, but it was the real turning point of the greatest War the World has ever seen. The Wehrmacht never mounted a major offensive against the Red Army again after Kursk.

Good one, and one of the biggest F-ups in history. First let me say that no I do not agree with anything that Nazis did. But, just from a military strategy stand period yes, they F-up big time. Hitler force a hold on the attack waiting on the Panther Tank and the KingTiger Tank. This allowed the Russians time to prepare and build up reserves. Also, the Germans were lose with their orders. The Russian knew the date and time of the attack and actually fired first. They had the German battle plan. Low on gas and equipment and good soldiers the attack quickly ran out of steam. Then the Russian threw in the reserves and crushed the Nazis taking 100s of thousands prisoner.

But, the entire Russian offensive was Hitler's undoing and his Generals even tried to warn him they would lose a war fought on 2 fronts. Several were fired, some were killed. It is almost a blessing that Hitler lost his patience with the Battle of Britain and turned to Russia early. He over extended and that lead to the defeat of the Nazis. Had he stayed the course with the attacks on England and not redeployed forces to the eastern front, IMO. England would have fallen with in 6 months or less. The US was more than a year away from entering the war. Also, had he waited other weapons would have come on that would have put the Nazis far ahead of the rest of the world, the ME-262, HE-162, AR-234 (first jet bomber), HO-229, ME P-1101, the StG-44 (first assault rifle), night vision scopes, v-1 and V2's. With these weapon the Russians would have stood little chance and then who knows.
04-28-2015 10:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ecumbh1999 Offline
Keeper of the Code
*

Posts: 11,774
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 255
I Root For: East Carolina
Location:
Post: #90
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(03-17-2015 11:24 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  The Capture of Jerusalem (1099).

Any battle between the small, underdog Eastern European rulers against the bloodthirsty, conquering Ottomans. Men like Skanderbeg, Hunyadi, Stephen the Great of Moldavia are personal heroes of mine. Their courageous against a near unstoppable war machine is inspiring. If only Western Europe decided to intervene, the problems of the 1990's may have been avoided.

Interestingly, none of my ancestors stem from the Balkans. Most of my blood is English and Western European with a dash of Slovak and Ukrainian mixed in on my father's side. I really wish to take the time to learn more about the culture and fairy tales of my ancestors.

The American Revolution will forever be the biggest influence on me. The numbers of times that America came this close to falling apart is staggering. As Washington declared: "The hand of Providence was involved" and it is impossible to refuse in my opinion. Generals like Nathaniel Greene and "Mad" Anthony Wayne deserve more respect and remembrance.

The Siege of Malta (1565).

The American Civil War or the War of Northern Aggression (this Yankee won't argue that!)

Colonial-Indian battles especially on the East Coast.

The War of the Spanish Succession. The Duke of Marlborough and Eugene of Savoy are the best duo since David and Jonathan.

The Thirty Years War. A tragic case of policies destroying a fractured geographical entity.

The Crusades.

The Eighty Years War. One siege lasted 4 years!

1099 Capture of Jerusalem? Really? When they took the city they killed every man women and child living with in the city. Every CHILD. The Pope want the Crusades as a way to stop in fight among Christian rulers. At this time he issued bull saying it was a sin and wrong for a Christian to kill another Christian. It was little more than a way to control and focuss agression. It is funny when Saladin retook Jerusalem in 1187 he refused to take the city by the sword and allowed the Christian defenders to pay a ransom to leave free and unharmed. Yes some 30,000 could not be paid for and became slaves. But, half were given to Saladin's bother and son who released them unconditionally. And, Saladin ordered that none of the temples be harmed or looted. This is why the Church of the Holy Sepulcher still stands today. In any case the crusades were a failure. The Christian Kindgom of Jerusalem only stood for 188 years was forced in to exile, first Arce, then Crete. Later Cursades by King Richard were failure never gaining much ground, event later one were complete disasters.
04-28-2015 11:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,364
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 567
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #91
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
San Jacinto.

Changed the history of the entire American Southwest.
08-26-2015 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.