History Debate Thread

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • History Debate Thread

      A week or so ago, I created a thread. It asked the simple question of who the greatest general of all time was. That thread blew up. Because we are a bunch of history nerds, I think that asking history questions and having debates over them would be cool. (Even though I'm a very amateur historian. I only got into history last September.) So, I created this thread for people to debate on history questions. There will always be two questions being asked. One will be open ended, and one will be with a few choices. . Every week, I will change the questions.

      Open Ended: What was the biggest mistake in military history?

      Multiple Choice: Were the Romans or the Greeks better? This question is from a military, stability, and cultural standpoint.
      WHOS GONNA CARRY THE BOATS?
      WHOS GONNA CARRY THE LOGS?
      THEY DON'T KNOW YOU SON!

      - David Goggins

      The post was edited 1 time, last by BrutusTrump ().

    • BrutusTrump wrote:

      Open Ended: What was the biggest mistake in military history?

      Multiple Choice: Were the Romans or the Greeks better?
      Open Ended: Not believing the intelligence from the scout pilots that spotted the German army in the Ardennes. They were vulnerable there and would have been destroyed in an artillery and air bombardement. WWII could have been stopped right there and then. Instead millions of lives were destroyed.

      Romans: they conquered the Greeks right ;) Greece was a mixture of independend city states. As they had a democracy as political system there was always a large discussion before the army would act. No-one wanted one city or general getting too powerful. They were divided. As Julius Ceasar said: "Divide and conquer" That still counts today.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

    • Oh, sorry. For the Romans vs Greeks question, I edited it to include who was better culturally and more stable.
      The two biggest mistakes in history were the same thing, in my opinion. In war, you should never fight land wars in Asia. But even more importantly, you shouldn't invade Russia in winter. If you want to invade Russia, get it done before winter. Napoleon fell to this. He was at his prime before the invasion of Russia. He came into Russia with 600,000 men. He came out with 100,000. Similarly, if the Germans never launched Operation Barbarossa, war with Russia could've been avoided for some time. In WW2, 4/5 of all Germans were on the Russia front. If they were on the Western Front, the U.S. and England never could've succeeded. Yet, somehow, Operation Barbarossa succeeded. The Germans were on the gates of Moscow. Then, Hitler ordered them to stop for a month. After that, winter came. The rest is, quite literally, history.
      WHOS GONNA CARRY THE BOATS?
      WHOS GONNA CARRY THE LOGS?
      THEY DON'T KNOW YOU SON!

      - David Goggins

    • okay couple of things

      1: the Germans did not invade during the winter. they inavded as early as they could hitler was stupid but not that stupid.

      2: war with Russia was invetiable the berlin Moscow alliance ( if you can call it an alliance) was basically a game of who was going to strike first. and the Germans did it first, cuz the Germans probably would not have not gotten another chance to they were running very low oil. ( it was a now or never scenario) and the soviets probably would have attacked in 42 or 43 this evident by stalin not making any forts on the german border. and destroying forts on the polish border cuz he taught if war between Germans and the soviets broke out the soviets would be on the offensive .

      3: in this new timeline where the Germans don't attack the soviets d day probably would have still worked. for it not work the Germans would have to focus all of their armies on Normandy. that would leave the east unprotected against soviet army that was reorganized and ready for war. the means the Germans would still have focused on the east and would have gone for strategy they did in our timeline. ( use the coastal defense to hold their landings and then send in the nearby panzers divisions to push them into the sea and focus on the east) so it would have still worked and plus people forget about the deception tactic. the allies fooled the Germans into believing lies. ( there was one allied double agent spy called JUAN PUJOL GARCIA he was insane. He was so good at convincing the Germans lies that he got awarded the iron cross by hitler)
      "I don't know jeff!"

      Chris kamara

      The post was edited 3 times, last by AMG Morgan ().

    • biggest mistake in military history was Napoleons invasion of russia.

      The thing with Germanys ww2 invasion, they needed to invade the Soviet Union, they were really running out of Oil at the time, and the USSR had tons of it, also it was a non-aggression-pact, not an alliance. One of them were going to attack, it was just a matter of time. Also Hitler hated the communist obviously, a war was inevitable.

      Napoleons invasion of russia only happened because Russia was trading with allied forces, they literally had to though, because their economy was horrible, and it was horrible, napoleon was winning battle after battle, just before he invaded Russia, when he did, he invaded in the HOT summer, so it more troops died from the heat. When he got to Moscow, it was winter, and he had to Get OUT of Russia.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by cl0xy ().

    • If you ask me what's the greatest mistake in military history well then i don't know what the "greatest" is but i will just mention Soviet invasion of Finland is a terrible mistake not because it was an invasion, that's a political topic but because they charged in without any intel. There they encountered strong artillery fortifications(forgot the name of it) and this is the reason for their huge losses and "that!" is a huge! mistake. But to be honest Red/Soviet army was nothing but a maker of mistakes... >.>

      Another mistake is during the siege of Constantinople in 1453 the Italian section that was protecting the walls forgot to lock the gates which led Ottomans in. A small mistake with large consequence.

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      As for the Greeks against Romans, it really depends what you would consider the Eastern Roman Empire to be Greek or Roman? if you say Roman then Rome would be greater but if you say Greeks then Greeks. I personally consider Eastern Rome to be Greek.

      Their military traditions are equally impressive The Greeks seem to be less corrupt and their culture was way more impressive to later nations than lets say the Romans and the conquered nations were impressed by Greek culture where as Roman culture was opposed in many places. The ancient Roman court spoke Greek.

      So yeah i say Greek.

    • cl0xy wrote:

      Napoleons invasion of russia only happened because Russia was trading with allied forces, they literally had to though, because their economy was horrible, and it was horrible, napoleon was winning battle after battle, just before he invaded Russia, when he did, he invaded in the HOT summer, so it more troops died from the heat. When he got to Moscow, it was winter, and he had to Get OUT of Russia.
      also to add to this the Russian used scorched earth. basically destroying everything before retreating making napoleon speed tactic useless.
      "I don't know jeff!"

      Chris kamara

    • BrutusTrump wrote:

      Oh, sorry. For the Romans vs Greeks question, I edited it to include who was better culturally and more stable.
      The two biggest mistakes in history were the same thing, in my opinion. In war, you should never fight land wars in Asia. But even more importantly, you shouldn't invade Russia in winter. If you want to invade Russia, get it done before winter. Napoleon fell to this. He was at his prime before the invasion of Russia. He came into Russia with 600,000 men. He came out with 100,000. Similarly, if the Germans never launched Operation Barbarossa, war with Russia could've been avoided for some time. In WW2, 4/5 of all Germans were on the Russia front. If they were on the Western Front, the U.S. and England never could've succeeded. Yet, somehow, Operation Barbarossa succeeded. The Germans were on the gates of Moscow. Then, Hitler ordered them to stop for a month. After that, winter came. The rest is, quite literally, history.
      If I’m not mistaken hitler ordered elements of army group centre to help army group south and north so that their objectives could be completed but this would be fatal as it delayed the attack on moscow.(that year had an early winter) By the time the invasion started , winter started yet hitler continue pushing without giving winter clothing and the fuel in tanks froze. (in which the germans had to rely on only infantry to attack). The attack was going ok, but stalin pulled troops from the siberian front and deployed them to act as a reserve until the counter-attack. (German intelligence showed that stalin had no reserves so they continued the attack instead of retreating)

    • AMG Morgan wrote:

      okay couple of things

      1: the Germans did not invade during the winter. they inavded as early as they could hitler was stupid but not that stupid.

      2: war with Russia was invetiable the berlin Moscow alliance ( if you can call it an alliance) was basically a game of who was going to strike first. and the Germans did it first, cuz the Germans probably would not have not gotten another chance to they were running very low oil. ( it was a now or never scenario) and the soviets probably would have attacked in 42 or 43 this evident by stalin not making any forts on the german border. and destroying forts on the polish border cuz he taught if war between Germans and the soviets broke out the soviets would be on the offensive .

      3: in this new timeline where the Germans don't attack the soviets d day probably would have still worked. for it not work the Germans would have to focus all of their armies on Normandy. that would leave the east unprotected against soviet army that was reorganized and ready for war. the means the Germans would still have focused on the east and would have gone for strategy they did in our timeline. ( use the coastal defense to hold their landings and then send in the nearby panzers divisions to push them into the sea and focus on the east) so it would have still worked and plus people forget about the deception tactic. the allies fooled the Germans into believing lies. ( there was one allied double agent spy called JUAN PUJOL GARCIA he was insane. He was so good at convincing the Germans lies that he got awarded the iron cross by hitler)
      They shouldn't have invaded Russia in the first place. The war was inevitable with Russia, but it could have been a defensive war. The reason why the Germans were pushed out of Russia was due to scorched earth and thin supply lines. Meanwhile, fighting a defensive war allows for more mobility and shorter supply lines. Plus similar to the Soviets, the Germans also had new tanks coming into production. Instead of invaded Russia, Hitler could've invaded Egypt and British Colonies in the middle east. Great Britain completely relied on her colonies. If Hitler sent 20 more divisions to Rommel, he could've driven the British out of Egypt and taken control of the Suez Canal. Also, if Hitler had pressured Spain to seize Gibraltar it would've given them full control over the Mediterranean sea. Without British naval presence, it would free up the entire Italian navy to do commerce raiding in the Atlantic. Middle East would be easily taken over by the Axis giving them huge amounts of oil. After the invasion of Africa and the Middle East, the Germans can also pressure the Turkish to join the war. A second operation Barbarossa would take place in 1942. The Japanese would also join by tying down troops in the east. One thing the Soviets were afraid of was an invasion from many different fronts. This operation would have been successful. With the Soviets crushed the Germans would easily be able to repel D day.

    • AMG Morgan wrote:

      cl0xy wrote:

      Napoleons invasion of russia only happened because Russia was trading with allied forces, they literally had to though, because their economy was horrible, and it was horrible, napoleon was winning battle after battle, just before he invaded Russia, when he did, he invaded in the HOT summer, so it more troops died from the heat. When he got to Moscow, it was winter, and he had to Get OUT of Russia.
      also to add to this the Russian used scorched earth. basically destroying everything before retreating making napoleon speed tactic useless.
      Well, the scorched earth tactic was mainly to reduce napoleon’s supplies as supplies had to travel a long way before reaching at the front. Also, cossacks were constantly raiding their supply line which reduced the amount of troops napoleon could field. When he arrived at moscow, he expected a russian surrender but they didn’t and didn’t reply to napoleon’s demand for surrender ( which he spent 3 weeks in moscow with limited supplies). By the time of napoleon’s retreat, he had little to no supply.

    • vietcong2005 wrote:

      They shouldn't have invaded Russia in the first place. The war was inevitable with Russia, but it could have been a defensive war. The reason why the Germans were pushed out of Russia was due to scorched earth and thin supply lines. Meanwhile, fighting a defensive war allows for more mobility and shorter supply lines. Plus similar to the Soviets, the Germans also had new tanks coming into production. Instead of invaded Russia, Hitler could've invaded Egypt and British Colonies in the middle east. Great Britain completely relied on her colonies. If Hitler sent 20 more divisions to Rommel, he could've driven the British out of Egypt and taken control of the Suez Canal. Also, if Hitler had pressured Spain to seize Gibraltar it would've given them full control over the Mediterranean sea. Without British naval presence, it would free up the entire Italian navy to do commerce raiding in the Atlantic. Middle East would be easily taken over by the Axis giving them huge amounts of oil. After the invasion of Africa and the Middle East, the Germans can also pressure the Turkish to join the war. A second operation Barbarossa would take place in 1942. The Japanese would also join by tying down troops in the east. One thing the Soviets were afraid of was an invasion from many different fronts. This operation would have been successful. With the Soviets crushed the Germans would easily be able to repel D day.
      my freind you have to remember me and you have hindsight we know everything about ww2 but the Germans and people who fought in the war didn't.

      1: the japanese were never going to attack the soviets. they were given a bloody nose at battle of khalkhin gol where the army was humiliated and the japanese went with the navy and used the pacific doctrine. where they would attack the USA and South East asia.

      2: Spain joining would be highly unlikely franco was pressured several times in 1941 to join yet he did not Spain economy was shambles. and I am pretty sure another Civil War would have happened had he joined cuz the people would be passed.


      3: hindsight hindsight hindsight the nazis had massive ego's they thought the german people were better than everyone else. they considered everyone else to be " lesser beings" and that's why they attacked Russia even tho their plan was massively flawed. for the Germans to not attack Russia or wait for the Russians to attack you would have to change who the nazis were and at that point it goes to fiction and not alternative history.
      "I don't know jeff!"

      Chris kamara

    • AMG Morgan wrote:

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      They shouldn't have invaded Russia in the first place. The war was inevitable with Russia, but it could have been a defensive war. The reason why the Germans were pushed out of Russia was due to scorched earth and thin supply lines. Meanwhile, fighting a defensive war allows for more mobility and shorter supply lines. Plus similar to the Soviets, the Germans also had new tanks coming into production. Instead of invaded Russia, Hitler could've invaded Egypt and British Colonies in the middle east. Great Britain completely relied on her colonies. If Hitler sent 20 more divisions to Rommel, he could've driven the British out of Egypt and taken control of the Suez Canal. Also, if Hitler had pressured Spain to seize Gibraltar it would've given them full control over the Mediterranean sea. Without British naval presence, it would free up the entire Italian navy to do commerce raiding in the Atlantic. Middle East would be easily taken over by the Axis giving them huge amounts of oil. After the invasion of Africa and the Middle East, the Germans can also pressure the Turkish to join the war. A second operation Barbarossa would take place in 1942. The Japanese would also join by tying down troops in the east. One thing the Soviets were afraid of was an invasion from many different fronts. This operation would have been successful. With the Soviets crushed the Germans would easily be able to repel D day.
      my freind you have to remember me and you have hindsight we know everything about ww2 but the Germans and people who fought in the war didn't.
      1: the japanese were never going to attack the soviets. they were given a bloody nose at battle of khalkhin gol where the army was humiliated and the japanese went with the navy and used the pacific doctrine. where they would attack the USA and South East asia.

      2: Spain joining would be highly unlikely franco was pressured several times in 1941 to join yet he did not Spain economy was shambles. and I am pretty sure another Civil War would have happened had he joined cuz the people would be passed.


      3: hindsight hindsight hindsight the nazis had massive ego's they thought the german people were better than everyone else. they considered everyone else to be " lesser beings" and that's why they attacked Russia even tho their plan was massively flawed. for the Germans to not attack Russia or wait for the Russians to attack you would have to change who the nazis were and at that point it goes to fiction and not alternative history.
      A lot of generals didn't really want to invade Russia early in the first place. It was only Hitler who believed that invading Russia was the key. Many commanders like Eric Raeder wanted to focus on securing the Mediterranean first before invading Russia.

    • Nah the majority wanted to invade russia cuz they thought the Russian military was weak after the got humiliated in the finish war. and plus people in Germany and the German generals did not like communism. so its was win win they get to destroy communism and they get resources to win the war against the allies. And even if all the generals disagreed with the plan Hitler was the man calling the shots. so it's was either obey the plan or get thrown into jail.
      "I don't know jeff!"

      Chris kamara

    • Worst mistake in history: Poland not ceding Danzig to the Germans, that would've prevented the whole was from happening, the British and the French wouldn't attack the Germans and the war would never happen. But I do think the Germans would invade Russia as the Germans hated Communism.
      The Saviour

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Claudio NVKP ().

    • Worst mistake: Britain not making peace with Germany after the fall of France. Now they were stuck in an endless war they could never win alone, needed American industry for war materials which they couldn't really afford, and up to their ears in debt when they finally won. A world Empire when it started, winning it, yet a second rate power after victory.

      It was very noble to want to fight the brutal Nazi ideology to the bitter end, but from a geopolitical viewpoint, really stupid.

      Second place goes to ALL the Spanish policies between 1550 and 1650.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • BMfox wrote:

      Open Ended: Not believing the intelligence from the scout pilots that spotted the German army in the Ardennes. They were vulnerable there and would have been destroyed in an artillery and air bombardement. WWII could have been stopped right there and then. Instead millions of lives were destroyed.
      The world would be so much different if the French hadn't been so stubborn.

      1. America would not be as much of a world power
      2. France and the UK might still have their empires
      3. Germany once again would have been forced into peace (WW3 perhaps?)
      4. No nukes
      5. No industrial kick off in the USA due to war
      6. US still isolationist
      7. The German state might have convinced the west to attack the USSR