I have always wondered...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Robert E. Lee must have said that before the Civil War not after.

No, not Robert E. Lee himself. I was referring to the quote attributed to Lee: "I have carefully searched the military records of both ancient and modern history, and have never found Grant's superior as a general. I doubt if his superior can be found in all history."

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

@Steve. You're in a band! You should do "Sink the Bismarck" or "The Sinking Of The Reuben James" or even "PT-109" by Jimmy Dean and get it on video to upload on Subsim Day here in like a week.

'Was' in a band. Still looking for another. And the last band only did stuff we wrote ourselves. That's the way I like it.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

...a VERY brief touch on the War of the Roses (I mean, like one lesson), the Tudors, a brief mention of the Civil war, the Victorians, and the two world wars.

Does that mean I know more about the Tudors than you? I like all the connections there, from Columbus (again) through Philip of Spain and back to Richard III (who may have been a much better man than we remember, since we remember Shakespeare, who worked for Henry VII's granddaughter). Of course I got started on that part of history back in 1971 when I watched Six Wives of Henry VIII.

My late friend Rocky once characterized the era from the Crimea through World War Two as the third 'Hundred Years War'. He also called World War One a family squabble between Victoria's grandchildren, since George V, Wilhelm II and Nicholas II were all cousins.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Does that mean I know more about the Tudors than you? I like all the connections there, from Columbus (again) through Philip of Spain and back to Richard III (who may have been a much better man than we remember, since we remember Shakespeare, who worked for Henry VII's granddaughter). Of course I got started on that part of history back in 1971 when I watched Six Wives of Henry VIII.

My late friend Rocky once characterized the era from the Crimea through World War Two as the third 'Hundred Years War'. He also called World War One a family squabble between Victoria's grandchildren, since George V, Wilhelm II and Nicholas II were all cousins.

Wilhelm was also a member of our armed forces IIRC!

Yes, it is quite likely that you know more about the Tudors than me, to be honest I'm not a big fan of them, I fall more to the York than Lancaster side of the war, I know a little bit about Henry VIII, about the usual GCSE fair, the falling out with the pope, the Mary Rose, his desperation for a male heir and the numerous wives that followed, but that's about the short and the long of it.
My knowledge of Britain doesn't really come back into focus until the later years of Charles I.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Platapus

No one can ever learn all the history of the US, and I don't expect a school to spend all that much time trying to cover 200+ years.

And know imagine you're in Europe with 2000+ years of history.

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

Hey...USA 2 Time World War Champs....

That's sad. To think one country alone won either of those wars.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

That's sad. To think one country alone won either of those wars.

The US only got involved in April 1917 and it took us a long time to get fully mobilized so we where not a real threat until 1918.What "won" WWI was the fact that the other powers had been fighting for four years and their nations where on the verge of collapse.

All I can say for WWII is it is a good thing that Hitler was stupid enough to attack the Soviet Union and then turn around a few months later and declare war on the US two nations that had nearly unlimited manpower(and woman). Logistics the real war winner or loser if you lack it.

Also as you say no one nation alone "wins" a war of such scale.In fact no war is truly "won" one side usually achieves its goals or both sides tire and sue for peace.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

The US only got involved in April 1917 and it took us a long time to get fully mobilized so we where not a real threat until 1918.What "won" WWI was the fact that the other powers had been fighting for four years and their nations where on the verge of collapse.

All I can say for WWII is it is a good thing that Hitler was stupid enough to attack the Soviet Union and then turn around a few months later and declare war on the US two nations that had nearly unlimited manpower(and woman). Logistics the real war winner or loser if you lack it.

Also as you say no one nation alone "wins" a war of such scale.In fact no war is truly "won" one side usually achieves its goals or both sides tire and sue for peace.

x2. Although the extra manpower of the US in 1918 helped to retake the ground lost in the Spring Offensive faster than it could have been done without. It was all about manpower in those final days.