Ah, understood!
Hello! This is my first foray into the history forum! Am a budding Historian myself (though i majoring in Econs boo hoo!)
I have a enquiry to ask regarding my History Homework( doing it as a minor )
I am tasked to do a project on the nature of warfare in the First Gulf War. ( Just to clarify, i mean the 1991 War )
Any good sources i can look for in the areas of :
1) A general Introduction of the Gulf War
2) Motives behind the Belligerents
3) How was the War fought ?
Any other areas which you can suggest will be deeply appreciated by me
Many thanks in advance!
@Stellarnight, it's kind of late, but I found these:
The Decision Not To Invade Baghdad (it's PDF)
...and these three articles:
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper496.html
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers6/paper524.html
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers6/paper598.html
Don't know if the southasiaanalysis are any good, but The Decision... certainly is.
This is quite a cool thread.
Did any Poles participate in the Battle of Duna (Crossing of the Duna) 1701? And if so, how many? When did the war began between Sweden and Poland in the great northern war? formally it war 1704, however, they both fought intense eariler. Thanks
Yes. However, first of all, you should remember that at this point Poland-Lithuania was in personal union with Saxony, under the leadership of August the Strong, Elector of Saxony and King of Poland-Lithuania. Hence, there was no war between Sweden and Poland as such; instead, it was a war between Sweden and Saxony-Poland, since both realms were under the same leadership of August the Strong. Thus, the war, for Poland, began in 1700.
Yes. Poles did participate at the Battle of the Düna, as did Russians. However, August's Polish subjects refused to support the war financially and with troops. Thus, only a small detachment of 6,000 Poles and Lithuanians was sent. This, of course, would prove devastating for August at the Battle of Düna.
I appreciate your answer very much, it was indeed helpful. I've always mixed up the different nations in the war, glad you took your time to solve that one for me. So, if there was 6,000 soldiers from the (Crown army?), there must have been 3,000 Saxons and not 9,000 as the Wikipedia article claims [9,000-6,000=3,000]? Or were these Saxons+ the Polish-Lithuanian army? And then 10,000 Russians who was not as active in the engagement as the Saxons/Poles/Lithuanians? I might have got this wrong. And is there any good source for this? As I'm doing a project about this war and battle. Not that I doubt what you just said cause I don't, it sounds reasonable and true. Thanks again, Diamat.
I am by no means an expert on this subject. I merely have an interest because it is part of the history of my country, Saxony.
My source was the German Wikipedia:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%...rdischer_Krieg
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlacht_an_der_D%C3%BCna
Actually, now that I'm looking at the English version of Wiki, it says that there were 19,000 Saxon-Russian-Polish-Lithuanian soldiers, whereas the German version says that there were 25,000. Maybe the English version isn't accounting for the Polish-Lithuanian troops, which numbered 6,000 (19,000 + 6,000 = 24,000...close enough).
Perhaps someone more familiar with this subject can point you to good sources. The German original source is: Anders Fryxell: Lebensgeschichte Karl’s des Zwölften, Königs von Schweden. Nach dem schwedischen Original frei übertragen von Georg Friedrich von Jenssen-Tusch, 5 Bde., Vieweg, Braunschweig 1861, Band 1
If anyone is doing anything military related for a question/essay/presentation etc, then the University of Kent Military History Society might be able to help as it has a pair of archives full of sources hosted on-line, featuring hundreds of articles form media outlets and other sources. Our own academic works also may prove useful. The forum is linked in my signature. Can't find what you are looking for, let us know, and we can try to accommodate.
Looks quite interesting, might give that a detailed peruse sometime.
An order of battle for the Saxon-Polish army in August 1700 at Riga can be found at http://rusmilhist.blogspot.co.uk/201...livland-4.html but as the blogger points out it doesn't match with data from Schuster & Franke (Schuster O., Francke F.U. Geschichte der Sächsischen Armee. Leipzig, 1885, Teil 1) - his main concerns are about Guard mounted units & converged grenadiers.
It forms part of a blog dedicated to the Russian Military History 1650-1730s & related topics. It appears to be full of very useful data.
Last edited by Prince of Essling; October 29, 2012 at 04:50 PM. Reason: spelling
Sign DLC petition for improved map for NTW
Useful Websites |Napoleon: Masters of Europe |
The Wardrobe of 1805 |Napoleon: Art of War|
Frederick the Great: Art of War|
Under the Patronage of Gunny
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
Hey guys. For a project I have to compare and contrast two biographies of a historical figure before 1600. Any thoughts on interesting figures that would be easy to find physical books of? I want someone obscure and on the fringes but not so much so that it's hard to find stuff on them.
Thanks.
Richard coeur de lion and Salad al Din good similarities and differences
Please delete moderator- double post
Last edited by Antiokhos Euergetes; November 07, 2012 at 09:17 AM.
Richard coeur de lion and Salah al Din good similarities and differences
For some classical personalities have a look at the Lives by Plutarch- for inspiration
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...ives/home.html
Last edited by Antiokhos Euergetes; November 07, 2012 at 09:16 AM.
If you want to do ancient persons, I'd indeed follow Antiochos' advice and look into Plutarch. If you are looking for a later person, you could also compare Charlesmagne and Justinian for example as emperors of the West and the East. There might be a lot of differences actually, but in the end both saw themselves as the only and rightful Roman emperors. It could be a bit tricky, but it should be an interesting idea and I don't think there's too much work on it yet so you would do something new
If this is only a minor school project go for one of Plutarch's comparison, Pyrrhos and Gaius Marius for example are not mainstream but there are decent sources and monographies on it.
"Pompeius, after having finished the war against Mithridates, when he went to call at the house of Poseidonios, the famous teacher of philosophy, forbade the lictor to knock at the door, as was the usual custom, and he, to whom both the eastern and the western world had yielded submission, ordered the fasces to be lowered before the door of science."
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 7, 112
Your post wasn't particularly clear. Do you mean compare biographies of two different people, or two biographies of the same person? By before 1600, do you mean the historical figure, or the biography itself (for example Plutarch, Suetonius, Historia Augusta, Einhard etc. or a modern author)?
Greetings again all,
As you may have seen earlier, I posted a query regarding a history coursework subject. I have chosen upon the Cuban Revolution of 1959.
I was wondering if anyone had any sub-questions (short term and long term affects) I could pose?
Ugh, my apologies everyone, I just got back to check this, didn't realize how ambiguous my post was.
Two different biographies written about the same person. The person must have lived before 1600.
It's more of a book critque/comparison than a historical research paper, but I want an interesting historical figure to make it more interesting.
I'm leaning towards Vlad the Impaler. Basically I'm looking for a cool/bad-ass figure that would also not be hard to find two different biographies on (physical copies, no online stuff allowed).
Perhaps then someone who means something different to different people? I am thinking Ivan Grozny (terrible) or Oliver Cromwell