History channels.

[Sir Adrian]

Apparently this is their source list

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

"The Second World War- Martin Gilbert
The Second World War - Antony Beevor
The Second World War - John Keegan"

Jesus Christ! No wonder...


"The Battle for China- (Essays) Various"

I love these essays but this isn't the way it should be used. What they needed was an actual book(s) about the Sino-Japanese War.


"The Rommel Papers- Erwin Rommel, edited by B.H. Liddell-Hart"

No! Bad! Not only is this source over 40 years old but it is written by Basil Liddell-Hart. The man has a strong reputation but basically everything he writes is propaganda which he recycles from what was already said by German generals. Liddel-Hart also takes credit for being the inspiration for Guderian and therefore Blitzkrieg even though there exists no evidence for this. Not only was Liddel-Hart not that influential in Germany, but Guderian wasn't responsible for Blitzkrieg either. I mean Blitzkrieg isn't actually a thing, it is just a fancy term that some British newspaper or an Italian writer came up with like 20 years before WW2.


"Operation Barbarossa by David Glantz

Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the east by David Stahel"

Glantz is okay but he gets some stuff wrong here and there. I can't remember but I think Glantz argues in favor of Operation Typhoon, and he apparently doesn't know anything about the Winter 1941 Soviet Counter Offensive, nor about Case Blue. The reason David Glantz is so dangerous is that he has a clear appearance of being authoritative, so many people will not realize these errors or simply shrug them off and claim that people who bring it up are in the wrong. Richard Overy actually dealt with those operations better, he correctly points out the folly of the Wehrmacht officer's "withdraw in the face of attack" mentality.
I would say that David Stahel is actually much better than Glantz, more so because he has various books about the war in the East.


"A World at Arms by Gerhard Weinberg"

There isn't a WW2 author alive who has more of their material debunked on a regular basis. For context this was also the guy who claimed that the disproven "Hitler Diaries" hoaxes were real. He also had a vibrant career of attacking other writers (actually in this field there is a lot of that... see Richard Evans for example). Unfortunately Gerhard Weinberg is still a respected scholar, despite the fact that few people would take him as their go to source. This guy is actually the reason why I think there is a fine line between people who know what they are talking about and academics.

[Sir Adrian]

If you know better sources why not try contacting them. At least the great war team replied and confirmed looking at the books I suggested about Romania in WWI - they didn't use them or even cover the battles of 1917 and 1918 but at least they bought them.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I'm not interested in giving them sources.

[Cookiegod]

"Operation Barbarossa by David Glantz
Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the east by David Stahel"
Glantz is okay but he gets some stuff wrong here and there. I can't remember but I think Glantz argues in favor of Operation Typhoon, and he apparently doesn't know anything about the Winter 1941 Soviet Counter Offensive, nor about Case Blue. The reason David Glantz is so dangerous is that he has a clear appearance of being authoritative, so many people will not realize these errors or simply shrug them off and claim that people who bring it up are in the wrong. Richard Overy actually dealt with those operations better, he correctly points out the folly of the Wehrmacht officer's "withdraw in the face of attack" mentality.
I would say that David Stahel is actually much better, more so because he has various books about the war in the East.

Fully agree on the others, but Glantz is rather factual, thorough and detailed (judging by his other books, haven't looked at this one). Furthermore, if we disregard the benefit of hindsight (in which case: Why start a war against the USSR at all?!), then why the hell shouldn't the Soviets go for Moscow at that stage of the war? (The completely idiotic claim by Halder that they could've taken it by ignoring Kiev set aside for a moment). The battle of Moscow wasn't that big of a loss for the Germans, other than resulting in the loss of initiative. Which they also would have lost by stopping randomly somewhere. For the Soviets it was very costly as well.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

David Glantz is pretty good but you have to supplement it with other material. For starters he claims that the Germans took no significant losses in the Soviet counter offensive after Moscow. Which is false, and this was largely due to Guderian's own incompetence but he tends to get a free pass. Glantz also claims that the stand fast order may have saved the German army. Sounds rather disingenuous... actually Richard Overy states outright that it did save Army Group Center from collapsing.

The Germans took a lot of losses during Operation Typhoon, irreplaceable losses which probably cost them the war. They also took losses in the Soviet counter offensive. Operation Typhoon had already been called off and the campaign had been halted so the loss of initiative was already there. It was known by planners that Operation Typhoon could not be accomplished due to a variety of factors.

Not least of which because Leningrad was still holding out, but also because the German supply problems had not been resolved. In 1941 the Soviets could afford casualties, they lost millions of men in the invasion phase of the war after all. The Germans didn't even get close to Moscow either, and that shows us how absurd Operation Typhoon was.

[conon394]

The Germans took a lot of losses during Operation Typhoon, irreplaceable losses which probably cost them the war.

Well I say that with a bit more nuance - probably cost them the chance of some kind of maximum victory. I think something less that total defeat was still in the cards. Also fundamentally Japan failing to recognize that the Axis defeat of the USSR was the only way to balance the economic spread sheet (and that every bit of blood and treasure wasted in China was insanity) was apparently out of German hands, as sunch they likely were always fighting for not loosing.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

More or less, yes. It was obvious that the Germans were not going to win and it would turn into a prolonged slog match. But the issue was more technical, that the Germans needed to make up these losses in men and material, and then deploy them to the front. All while preventing the Soviets from carrying out, or winning any major operations.

[conon394]

More or less, yes. It was obvious that the Germans were not going to win and it would turn into a prolonged slog match. But the issue was more technical, that the Germans needed to make up these losses in men and material, and then deploy them to the front. All while preventing the Soviets from carrying out, or winning any major operations.

That is really the crux. As soon as the USSR showed itself to be not France (that defeated itself) Germany needed to be laser focused on plan 2 - not loosing and stop thinking there was victory to be had. Obviously Germany could have done far more to mobilize its economy immediately and stop wasting resources on a pointless fight in North Africa. Seeing as that one (NA) absorbed an inordinate amount of fuel and motorized vehicles, planes and transports that really were needed on the Eastern front its impact in defeat is oft overlooked.

[Basileos Leandros I]

Apparently this is their source list

I mean, if that is the source list, then the source list is rather solid. It's not comprehensive, but then again you risk going into the absolute other hand of having too much information and it becomes an info dump.

[saneel]

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Video doesn't work. Let me try to fix it for you.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

There you go just click reply with quote and copy the link.

I do love me some of that Black Prince. Najera was pretty cool but marching an army into Spain should be illegal.

[saneel]

Yes, sadly it was his demise despite great victory. It just showed how superior firepower will rule battlefield in upcoming wars and not heavy cavalry. The part about fighting between Pedro and his half brother Enrique after the battle of Montiel is also epic : Once there, after crossed accusations of bastardy, the two half-brothers started a fight to death, using daggers because of the narrow space. At a moment when they fought on the floor, Pedro got the upper side and was about to finish Enrique. But then Du Guesclin, who had stayed inactive for he was compromised to both, made his final choice. He grabbed Pedro's ankle and turned him belly-up, thus allowing Enrique to stab Pedro to death and gain the throne of Castile. While turning Pedro down, du Guesclin is claimed to have said "Ni quito ni pongo rey, pero ayudo a mi señor" (I neither remove nor put a King, but I do help my Sire), which has since that moment become a common phrase in Spanish, to be used by anyone of lesser rank who does what he is ordered or expected to do, avoiding any concern about the justice or injustice of such action, and declining any responsibility.

[Basileos Leandros I]

A good overview of the Dacian falx / Dacian sica / Thracian rhomphaia.

[saxdude]

If you understand spanish, Hanan has a pretty great youtube channel dedicated to the Incan empire. The information presented is for people around beginner to mid-level, so it's a solid series to get a solid grasp on the Tahuantinsuyo, without going into the intracacies of campaign logistics and whatnot.

It's worth checking out if you want to learn something outside the old world sphere, besides he ocasionally works with the artist Frank Abarca:

https://www.youtube.com/c/HananHistoriayCultura/videos

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Abdülmecid I]

I just watched the video about Cyrus II by Kings & Generals:



Not impressed, to be honest. Their research seems a bit dated and they make several claims, which are dubious at best. For example, the existence of the Median Empire is hotly debated, Croesus was most probably executed by the Persians and there is no hard evidence that Cyrus was part of the Achaemenid dynasty. In the royal descriptions, he describes himself as a Teispid, Achaemenes was added only after the reign of Darius. They also repeat uncritically the narrative of the Nabonidus chronicle about the Babylonian king being a terrible ruler, whose disastrous reign was corrected by Cyrus, although, to their credit, there's no mention of the Cyrus Cylinder being the first Human Rights Charter, per Pahlavi's propaganda. Also, there's a bizarre reference to the Urartian and Bactrian revolt against Cyrus. I have no idea what they are talking about. The only close thing I can think of is a very doubtful theory about Urartu having seceeded from the Medians and then conquered by Cyrus.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The video wasn't very good.


Although I see no reason to doubt the existence of the Median "Empire". So I'm wondering why it is debated.

In any case there exists multiple oral traditions about Cyrus from different tribal sources. These have been recorded by Herodotos, Xenophon, Ktesias, and Strabon respectively. As well as any fragments that we might find from inscriptions, cylinders, and the apocryphal statements from sources concerning Alexander and other histories.

My assumption is that the "Urartian" revolt is a reference to the references in some of these sources of a Tigranes of Armenia. Supposedly when Cyrus was in the service of Astyages he put down a revolt by Tigranes but then had him spared. This is also referred to in later Armenian sources from around the Byzantine period. Although it is possible that they were using earlier sources as their basis for the claims. Surprisingly the location of Tigranes's capital is one of those claims which kind of checks out.

The Bactrian revolt might be due to the confusion as to whether the Bactrians were tributaries of the Medes or if Cyrus was the one who conquered them. Some of these sources do mention campaigns by Cyrus in Bactria and Sogdia. Whether this was a revolt against Cyrus as they did not acknowledge him as the successor to the Medes, or if he had to conquer them outright, I simply don't know. But in any case such an event is mentioned in passing. It seems like Herodotos didn't cover it because he wanted to focus solely on the major events, by his own admission. So that one at least is partially true I would say.

[Abdülmecid I]

The controversy about the Median Empire started from Sancisi-Weerdenburg's article. I don't think it's available online, but you can read a summary here. Basically, neither archeological excavations nor cuneiform tablets attest the existence of a Median Empire. In fact, there seems to have been a decline in monumental architecture and population density in Media since the fall of the Assyrians. If I remember correctly, the hypothesis of Sancisi-Weerdenburg was that the Median state was a tribal confederation, which centralised, as a response to the Assyrian threat, but following their collapse, they fragmented again. Anyway, both Cyaxares and Astyages definitely existed (not Phraortes, though, Herodotus must have mixed him up with the Median noble that revolted against Darius), but, in my opinion, the size of their empire is exaggerated. I doubt they controlled anything else beyond north-western Iran and they were certainly weaker than the Babylonian kingdom.

They could refer to the mythical Tigranes, but I think he's too obscure to be taken into consideration. Besides, they would have probably called it an Armenian and not an Urartian campaign. Since they apparently consulted the Nabonidus chronicle, they must have taken (and misunderstood) the reference from there. The article I cited above also describes the alleged mention of Urartu in the inscription. The Bactrian uprising is probably a reference to Cyrus' campaigns there, but, even if we accept that Bactria was under the control of the Medes, that war was still one of conquest and not of revolt suppression. As far as I know, the only rebellion we know of during Cyrus' reign is that of Pactyes in Lydia.

[sumskilz]

I don’t recall reading Sancisi-Weerdenburg, but I generally agree with the idea that the Medes were a tribal confederation situated in northwestern Iran. Mid-Seventh Century, nearly all the cities in Urartu were destroyed. I don’t mean sacked and reoccupied, I mean completely destroyed. The assumption is that they were destroyed by the Medes, although it could have been the Medes, the Scythians, the Cimmerians or any combination of the above. The Akkadian sources, especially those from Babylonia, have a tendency to refer to all of the above as Cimmerians without distinction. They also refer to the Medes (among others) as the Ummān-Manda, which seems to be a generic term for hordes that come out of the highlands and destroy civilization. Yes, there is a bias in that, but the remains of Urartu suggest that it wasn’t a bias without reason. So I don’t think the Medes were so much into state building, but rather raiding, looting, and/or exacting tribute.

I largely agree with that Rollinger article linked. Although, based on text and archaeology, I would say the Medes were at Carchemish (which is not addressed). From 598, it looks like Medes and/or Scythians might have started serving as contingents in Babylonian armies, although it could just be that the Babylonians started using exact copies of their arrowheads. I'm referring to a specific arrowhead type associated with the destructions of Urartu and the Assyrian heartland. There is no sign of these from the 604 BCE destruction of Ashkelon, but they are present in all the destructions associated with Nebuchadnezzar II's campaign against Judah. As far as whether Urartu survived as a distinct political entity after the mid-Seventh Century, maybe, but I don’t see why that has to be the case, since it could have just survived as a geographical term.