Least Fascinating War/Most Fascinating War

[GaryChildress]

Not that war should be "fascinating" but I think some wars have an epic quality to them filled with stories of triumph and tragedy or battles between "good and evil" that keep you on the edge of your seat when you read about them while others just seem incredibly uninteresting.

I remember when I was very little reading about some of the battles of World War II. I remember being captivated by all the stories and tales of valor and bravery, by the radical changes in momentum and the cunning of the military strategists. WWII just seemed to have all the most interesting battles in it. From naval engagements like Midway or Savo Island to huge land battles like Kursk or Operation Market Garden. Each battle was like a whole story in itself with different characters and plots.

Then on the opposite extreme for me is WWI. To me the most uninteresting, pointless war of them all. A whole bunch of countries sucked into a war of attrition, just feeding men to machine guns. WWI just didn't seem to have the same dynamic quality of battle or the same epic stories like the Midways, Stalingrads, Operation Market Garden, or Normandy.

Is it just my bias or is there a reason why WWII is probably the most covered war when it comes to wargames and books, while WWI is almost the forgotten world war. [>:]

[V22 Osprey]

World War II is the best - Many nations, multiple fronts, combat fought on every type of terrain imaginable(From desert to snow, even dense jungle), actual tactics were used other than pointlessly chargin into Macine guns and most important of all it was truly a WORLD war.

World War I is the worst - Static lines, Nothing interesting happens.All this war was good for was the introduction of the first aircraft and tanks into battle.Tactics were nothing more than charging into machine machine guns, my Grandma could come up with better tactics than that.[8|]

[SS Hauptsturmfuhrer]

Most interesting battle I ever read about was Malta 1565, the last battle of the crusades.  The Order of John was last defense in the Mediterranean against the Turkish invasions of Europe.  Basically Malta and Vienna were the Bastognes of the crusades.   The Order of John has be evicted from Rhodes after a long, brave siege and was allowed by Holy Roman Empire to rent Malta as a place of refuge.  Of course they used their ships to take a few supplies from the rich Turkish merchant fleets moving through the sea and this enraged the Turks who swore to kill every Christian on Malta.  The tiny Christian army, with the Maltese who wanted revenge against Turks for their slave-grabbing raids on the island, had to hold the island which was frantically fortified in the nick of time before the Turks arrived with their state-of-the-art siege team including massive cannon, tunneling engineers, armies of Jannisary musketeers, experts in torture, and some basic infantry to use as fodder.  The island had a series of forts that the Turks systemically attacked in long, absolutely brutal fights mostly using cannon, muskets, pikes and lots of napalm.  The Turks tortured and/or crucified anyone they could get their hands on so the Christians and Maltese responded by killing their captive Turks and putting their heads in cannon to fire onto the Turks.  The fighting at the breaches in the defenses was a hectic slaughter of gunfire, napalm and melee weapons.  Pure, crazy mayhem.  That was a sick fight.

I like WW1 too.  The early battles before the trenches were dug were pretty crazy.  And there were some interesting tactics used once tanks were deployed like at Cambrai, and the final Kaiserschlacht in 1918 was both violent and the beginning of intelligent infantry tactics using both shock attacks and elastic defences.

[Silverdog]

I will try and bite my tongue here, as to reply to this as I would want to involves lots of foul and abusive language.[:@] To suggest that WW1 was a boring non event and those that took part were not worthy of mention….and to demean those that took part in that terrible conflict to a level of ‘my grandma could have done better’?? I will walk away from posting anymore least I get a ban…

[V22 Osprey]

ORIGINAL: Silverdog

I will try and bite my tongue here, as to reply to this as I would want to involves lots of foul and abusive language.[:@] To suggest that WW1 was a boring non event and those that took part were not worthy of mention….and to demean those that took part in that terrible conflict to a level of ‘my grandma could have done better’?? I will walk away from posting anymore least I get a ban…

Whoa, calm down.I wasnt trying to offend anyone.I was just making a joke with whole grandma thing, and none of us ever said WW1 was wasn't worthy of mention.Everyone is intitled to their own opinion.I dont think battle from sicily isn't that interesting, are you going to shoot me over that too?Just because I'm not interested in a war/battle doesn't mean that I'm saying its not worth mentioning.Men did die at Sicily, men did die in WW1 and they should not be forgottened.

[KG Erwin]

Poor choice of words, Gary. We game out death and destruction, regardless of time period or nations involved. None of it, by definition, is "uninteresting". We learn and we investigate alternative outcomes to the course of human history.

Of course, there are others who vent their anger by blowing up stuff in a game. We have a few of those hanging out here, but they won't admit it.

However, in a university paper, this topic would be a failure. Perhaps you could rethink the topic, such as "most relevant conflicts in the shaping of world history", but that has been done ad nauseaum.

Come back when you have something interesting to discuss.

[E]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Is it just my bias or is there a reason why WWII is probably the most covered war when it comes to wargames and books, while WWI is almost the forgotten world war. [>:]

WWI not as "interesting" as WWII? (I got your drift, where others took offense) Perhaps for the ground war. But the WWI air war is particularly interesting to me. It was the end of chivalry and the dawn of a new age in warfare that lasts to this day.

[GaryChildress]

What was a "poor choice of words"? Where did I say anything to offend anyone? Dang, touchy bunch of folks here this evening. You'd think I just pissed on the flag or something. [8|]

[V22 Osprey]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

What was a "poor choice of words"? Where did I say anything to offend anyone? Dang, touchy bunch of folks here this evening. You'd think I just pissed on the flag or something. [8|]

I agree here, everyone is getting all mad over nothing.Its impossible to have a decent discussion because you say one wrong word and ticks people off('over done battles' thread), even when they know it wasn't the poster's intent.I never said WWI isn't worth mentioning.I never even implied that.

[Arsan]

I think the idea that ww1=trenches=non interesting is mainly a problem of ignorance.
As soon as one began to read and know a little more about WW1 notices that its a fascinating period and that there was much more than trenches on it...
And that the trench war is indeed a fascinating topic too. Maybe not so much to play on a wargame, but certainly yes as an historic event.

Cheers!

PS: Malta siege was incredible... but what really broke the one back of Turkish power on the Mediterranean for good was Lepanto, some years later [&o]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto_(1571)
Even we Spaniards managed to won a great naval battle from time to time [;)][:D]

[wilecki]

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

World War I is the worst - Static lines, Nothing interesting happens.All this war was good for was the introduction of the first aircraft and tanks into battle.Tactics were nothing more than charging into machine machine guns, my Grandma could come up with better tactics than that.[8|]

Now that's just not fair. I don't think that WWI was not interesting, even western front had some very fascinating stories to tell but I would personally recommend you to learn more about the eastern front. It was far from static with very interesting and dynamic battles of Masurian Lakes or Tannenberg. They've even had some encirclements with massive use of cavalry and train transports if that's what you're looking for. And at Tannenberg Germans won having three times less troops than Russians what gave Hindenburg - who was called from retirement to save his retreating troops - his glory.

Edited: One more thing. Easier than expected victories over Russians in WWI were what gave Hitler a feeling that the Red Army would be no match to his troops and made him open the disastrous second front. That's just one example that one cannot think about WWII forgetting WWI completely.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Arsan
I think the idea that ww1=trenches=non interesting is mainly a problem of ignorance.
As soon as one began to read and know a little more about WW1 notices that its a fascinating period and that there was much more than trenches on it...
And that the trench war is indeed a fascinating topic too. Maybe not so much to play on a wargame, but certainly yes as an historic event.

Hear! hear!-Arsan, your the man. WW1 is fascinating-anything but boring or stupid. I "helped" my kids and a niece (while she was in university) dispel the idea that nothing intelligent happened during that war. Their teachers/professor was quite surprised and re-educated.

It just so happens that I just came up for a 'breather" from my new AAR for WW1-playing Ageods WW1 (with a new and outstanding patch). What is the first thing I see? This thread of course. Why, if I could reach some necks through the Internet I would...just kidding.[;)] We all have our preferences of interests. However, just because one has little interest in a subject, it is silly to assume that it is "boring" or whatever. I think that many would be rather surprised at the ingenuity of the commanders from all sides that was displayed throughout the war. Just for starters, just imagine trying to move a quarter of a million men within a few miles of a static front-along with a couple thousand howitzers without the "bad guy" knowing about it. There is hardly an area of endeavor in that war that did does not shine out with splendid effort and reason. Unfortunately, attrition became part of the picture, but there was a reason for that too.....

So, for a quick course in an alternative WW1, but dealing with the same problems, check out my AAR in the WW1 forum. I'm playing the CP (in 2 player mode) using the Moltke plan which avoided the invasion of Belgium and hit Russia with everything at the outset. Who knows, it might change your mind about that truly "Great War".

Addit: a shameful plug for my AAR tm.asp?m=2174683

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: wilecki
Now that's just not fair. I don't think that WWI was not interesting, even western front had some very fascinating stories to tell but I would personally recommend you to learn more about the eastern front. It was far from static with very interesting and dynamic battles of Masurian Lakes or Tannenberg. They've even had some encirclements with massive use of cavalry and train transports if that's what you're looking for. And at Tannenberg Germans won having three times less troops than Russians what gave Hindenburg - who was called from retirement to save his retreating troops - his glory.

Excellent point about Tannenburg and Mansurian Lakes. It just so happens that those battles were used by the US Army as an example of a proper defense in FM 100-5. FM 100-5 is the Bible of the U.S. Army. It was largely rewritten after Vietnam by some fairly sharp guys at Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). I have been out of the service for nearly 20 years, but it is entirely possible that those portions of the manual have not been changed.

Now why would the Bible writers of the most ass kicking army in the world use a study of a battle from a boring and stupid war to set an example of correct thinking in dire times. The answer, of course, is that they wouldn't do that. Those battles were chosen because of the shear brilliance, daring, and vigorous clear thinking displayed by the soldiers during that time.

BTW, there was only the one battle analyzed for the successful defense.

A bit OT, but if you are wondering what qualified for the example of a successful offensive in FM 100-5; the Vicksburg campaign pushed through by General U.S. Grant. Some might think that was a boring siege operation too-but only until you look at the details of the campaign. It was an incredible feat-even with a large superiority.

About old Hindenburg. Not to disparage a great officer, but the plan that won at Tannenburg was adopted and was being implemented by the general who was bounced out of command of the German 8th Army-before Hindenburg and Ludendorff showed up on the scene. The poor chap had a weak moment and wanted to withdraw just because he was outnumber 5 to one (or whatever).

[wilecki]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

ORIGINAL: wilecki
Now that's just not fair. I don't think that WWI was not interesting, even western front had some very fascinating stories to tell but I would personally recommend you to learn more about the eastern front. It was far from static with very interesting and dynamic battles of Masurian Lakes or Tannenberg. They've even had some encirclements with massive use of cavalry and train transports if that's what you're looking for. And at Tannenberg Germans won having three times less troops than Russians what gave Hindenburg - who was called from retirement to save his retreating troops - his glory.

Excellent point about Tannenburg and Mansurian Lakes. It just so happens that those battles were used by the US Army as an example of a proper defense in FM 100-5. FM 100-5 is the Bible of the U.S. Army. It was largely rewritten after Vietnam by some fairly sharp guys at Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). I have been out of the service for nearly 20 years, but it is entirely possible that those portions of the manual have not been changed.

Now why would the Bible writers of the most ass kicking army in the world use a study of a battle from a boring and stupid war to set an example of correct thinking in dire times. The answer, of course, is that they wouldn't do that. Those battles were chosen because of the shear brilliance, daring, and vigorous clear thinking displayed by the soldiers during that time.

BTW, there was only the one battle analyzed for the successful defense.

I've had no idea about that, thanks! I'll try to get my hands on this U.S. Army's Bible for sure.

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

About old Hindenburg. Not to disparage a great officer, but the plan that won at Tannenburg was adopted and was being implemented by the general who was bounced out of command of the German 8th Army-before Hindenburg and Ludendorff showed up on the scene. The poor chap had a weak moment and wanted to withdraw just because he was outnumber 5 to one (or whatever).

One weak moment is what it takes sometimes but this general sounding retreat when overpowering the Russians 1 to 5 is unforgivable. No wonder his name was forgotten

[jackx]

For me, it's the constant wars of the 18th century, and their wider socio-political context. The age of enlightenment, marching gaudily clad unwilling recruits in step and with bands playing into canister fire according to a "scientific" art of warfare. That's an exaggeration of course, but I find the period intrigueing - plus it's also a refreshing change from what comes later, because nationalism hasn't reared its ugly head yet.

Not sure why WW1 was getting so little love from the original posters... maybe it's not that interesting from a wargaming POV, but for emotional impact, it hits me a lot harder than WW2. WW2 just leaves me numb, WW1 generally makes me sad.

[SS Hauptsturmfuhrer]

ORIGINAL: Arsan


I think the idea that ww1=trenches=non interesting is mainly a problem of ignorance.
As soon as one began to read and know a little more about WW1 notices that its a fascinating period and that there was much more than trenches on it...
And that the trench war is indeed a fascinating topic too. Maybe not so much to play on a wargame, but certainly yes as an historic event.

Cheers!

PS: Malta siege was incredible... but what really broke the one back of Turkish power on the Mediterranean for good was Lepanto, some years later [&o]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto_(1571)
Even we Spaniards managed to won a great naval battle from time to time [;)][:D]

Thanks for the link to the Lepanto battle Arsan. That was a good read about some important history.

[Raverdave]

Well really you could call WWII an extension of WWI if you look at the cause and effect, with the conflict continuing right up to the end of the cold war, which in it's self was an extension of WWII.

[Raverdave]

WWI boring?  Have not any of you read some of the battles of Gallipoli ?  [&:]  The sea battles when the French and Brits tried to force the straits, and then battles such as Lone Pine.  

[GaryChildress]

My impression of WWI is indeed pretty stereotypical and not based upon any real study of it. I usually associate WWI with trench warfare and more or less static front lines. I think this is probably a common perception of WWI, though. If you go to most bookstores WWII usually takes up 4 or 5 times the amount of shelf space that WWI does. Is this simply a matter of happenstance? Why is it that WWII seems to have so much more appeal to game designers and authors?

[jackx]

Can't provide an in-depth answer to that, but my guess would be that people feel much more strongly about WW2, probably because it left more scars, and in more places, and because compared to WW1, you can approach it with a much clearer moral view of good and evil. That's general appeal though, which probably accounts for authors, but not necessarily wargame designers. For those, I'd add the relative ease with which in-depth information is available, and of course the "lots of cool gear" appeal, too.

All this is guesswork though, so I'm liable to be completely wrong.