For those who fancy history

[Towelie]

What era of world history do you find the most fascinating?

I don't mean which era would you like to live, as I find the First World War to be the most fascinating era of mankind, but hell if I'd want to live in the trenches.

So which is it?

[DasHuhn]

Oh, i don't know. Theres so many interesting eras. I really like the whole bizmark era with austria / prussia. I also really like the whole civil war era. I've also loved Russia during Peter the Greats time. If i had to pick only one, i'd most likely pick 1918-1925.

[Mr. Fiend]

The ancient world. They accomplished so much in the absence of electricity, computers, and all of the other comforts of modern life, it boggles the mind.

[Towelie]

Ancient is a little vague.

We talkin' Egyptians, Sumerians, SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA?

[Mr. Fiend]

I'll say the Greeks. The Romans and Egyptians also were very advanced.

And the hanging gardens of Babylon... there's something I'd like to see.

[Pltcl Sniper]

I find WWII very interesting, all so the great depression, but that goes hand in hand.

[Chunkywheats]

1999, so I could invest in yahoo or google.

[MeanPatrick]

Ancient and Medieval eras, focusing mosting on the British Isles. However I also like Medieval German, Greek and Russian history.

[Modest Genius]

Roman, Viking Invasion, Hundred Years War, Revolutionary and Napoleonic Europe

[marty]

I find the First World War to be the most fascinating era of mankind, but hell if I'd want to live in the trenches.

Same with me

Actually, it's the 50 years before WW1 up to the start of war that I find fascinating. After that, it just turns into hell on Earth :o.

I like how we're repeating today a lot of mistakes made in the 1890's, and "new, revolutionary" ideas many people think about today actually started back then.

[Captain Colon]

The big bang...or pretty much any era of history that doesn't involve humans. Humans are lame and boring.
I like how we're repeating today a lot of mistakes made in the 1890's, and "new, revolutionary" ideas many people think about today actually started back then.
ohshi- like what :o

[Scraps]

The Crusades and from 1939-2007, basicly whatever game im playing.

[pk!]

If I don't have to visit, then the UK in the 18th century - so much being done then.

If I have to visit, then London 1965.

[Vatek]

I find the Korean and Vietnam wars particularly fascinating. There's not much in the way of good literature for either of them, and I've always had a major thing for jungle warfare (in Vietnam's case).

Also, the Pacific and African side of WW2. I've spent years reading every piece of literature I could get my hands on for the European campaign, but I haven't read much about the Afrika Korps or the campaign through Italy. The Pacific war is also something of a mystery to me.

World War 2 naval history is also something I've taken an interest to lately.

[BS87]

The Year 2525

[OMFG it g00]

The age of metternich 1815 to 1848 paticularly germany, austria, prussia.
Also mostly concentrating on Metternich who is one of the most ridiculously compentet diplomats ive ever heard of.
also the revolutions in 1848 are interesting, but sans metternich :(
but yeah thats my favorite era for sure

[marty]

Ah, but Metternich set up the conditions that lead to WW1 and the Bolsheviks

I think the "best" diplomatic-type was Bismarck. He was better and worse than Metternich in many ways. It was actually his colleages that made him worse, though, not Bismarck himself...

Where Metternich's diplomacy indirectly lead to WW1, it was the incompetence of Bismarck's peers that more directly caused it.

Many people thought of Germany in that era as a bunch of warmongers, and I think this is not entirely deserved. For the most part, they were artisans, scientists, and philosophers, not really soldiers -- though I'm not gonna deny Prussian Militarism -- I'm just saying that it wasn't as important as the others.

Bismarck had a policy of starting a quick war to secure German short-term interests and making a quick peace in order to make sure there were "no hard feelings".

He had his way during the war with Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein and Austro-Prussian war. Denmark was bitter about the defeat, but wasn't really that angry... Austria ended up as a major military ally...

He DIDN'T have his way during the Franco-Prussian war. Von Roon, von Moltke, and the German monarchs got overconfident so they seized Alsace and Lorraine and demanded heavy reparations. That led to French Revanchism, WW1, the Nazis, Hitler, WW2, the Holocaust, the Bolsheviks, Stalin, :(, and :(...

Pretty much a lot of bad shit.

GG Germans. GG Causality.

[OMFG it g00]

Eh bismark is sweet to, I like Metternich more cause he was never a ruler or king, so his political clout was considerably less, but he still managed loverly things. :)
but bismark is totally included in my era ;)

[mahhag]

Winter War. Or ancient Rome.

[Psyche]

it's a toss up between the greco/roman era and medieval times.

[pk!]

I reckon once you've seen a battle, you've seen them all. But a party...

We all know what Sodom was famous for, but what did they do in Gommorah? Gommory? An entire art of filth is lost to us. I'd like someone to find out, but in case it's unspeakable, I'd rather someone else went there. With a video camera.

Anyway I'm changing my choices to New York in the 1920s before the crash, San Francisco in the 1960's, Weimar Berlin, and all yesterday's parties.

Oh and the Leningrad Cowboys gig with the Red Army. That was class.

[marty]

Eww, the gilded age?

[HodgeMASHEEN MkIII]

Ww2 :/

[Col. Psycho]

WW2, southern african bush wars from the 60's up to the 90's. vietnam interests me alot. shit, alot of things which interest me historically.

[Denwad]

Ah, but Metternich set up the conditions that lead to WW1 and the Bolsheviks

I think the "best" diplomatic-type was Bismarck. He was better and worse than Metternich in many ways. It was actually his colleages that made him worse, though, not Bismarck himself...

Where Metternich's diplomacy indirectly lead to WW1, it was the incompetence of Bismarck's peers that more directly caused it.

Many people thought of Germany in that era as a bunch of warmongers, and I think this is not entirely deserved. For the most part, they were artisans, scientists, and philosophers, not really soldiers -- though I'm not gonna deny Prussian Militarism -- I'm just saying that it wasn't as important as the others.

Bismarck had a policy of starting a quick war to secure German short-term interests and making a quick peace in order to make sure there were "no hard feelings".

He had his way during the war with Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein and Austro-Prussian war. Denmark was bitter about the defeat, but wasn't really that angry... Austria ended up as a major military ally...

He DIDN'T have his way during the Franco-Prussian war. Von Roon, von Moltke, and the German monarchs got overconfident so they seized Alsace and Lorraine and demanded heavy reparations. That led to French Revanchism, WW1, the Nazis, Hitler, WW2, the Holocaust, the Bolsheviks, Stalin, :(, and :(...

Pretty much a lot of bad shit.

GG Germans. GG Causality.

so basically it's blame the french? they started the war in the first place.

[marty]

It was actually mostly Bismarck's machinations. He had control at the start, and that pleased him, but he was pretty angry about what the monarchs did after Sedan. Can't blame the French; at that point in history, wars started over less.

A lot of WW1 can be blamed on the bungling of Bismarck's successors. It was all pretty much Kaiser Wilhelm's eccentric personality + von Buelow's short-sightedness + von Holstein's micromanaging + von Caprivi's ineffectiveness + von Tirpitz's single-mindedness.

But you could also throw blame on Count Tisza's unwillingness to give the Slavs a voice in the Dual Monarchy and Franz Joseph and his military commanders' overconfidence. Maybe Franz Ferdinand could be blamed a little too -- if he wasn't such an asshole, people would have listened to him.

[Somedude]

Also, a big one is feudal japan. I love that era, that mindset. That sense of honor. Extravagance WITH simplicity.... it's great.

I like the bakumatsu. The whole clash between modernization and the feudal class structure. During the time we were fighting the Civil War over here, they were fighting with swords and an increasing amount of guns. I have a special affinity for groups on the "losing" side, like the shinsengumi who I find endlessly interesting.

[CaptCommy]

I've seen a surprising amount of votes for the Middle Ages, and I really have to wonder why. Yeah, okay, Medieval: Total War is fun, but nothing really HAPPENED during the dark ages. It was a lot of shit for everyone on earth besides the elite few. I dunno, maybe I just see it differently.

As for my favorite, it would either be Toyotomi Hideyoshi's/Oda Nobunga's unification of Japan or the following Tokugawa regime and the restoration. Hell, just the whole period between Hideyoshi and the Meiji.

[marty]

Dark ages != Late Medieval Age (which I'm thinking people are talking about).

You're saying nothing happened in Europe during one of its greatest period of population movements, but your favorite is the time when Japan became STATIC for a few centuries?!

[Modest Genius]

I've seen a surprising amount of votes for the Middle Ages, and I really have to wonder why. Yeah, okay, Medieval: Total War is fun, but nothing really HAPPENED during the dark ages. It was a lot of shit for everyone on earth besides the elite few. I dunno, maybe I just see it differently.The Dark Ages came before the Middle Ages.

So, you're telling me that the Hundred Years War, the Holy Roman Empire, Barbarosa, Genghis Khan, The Crusades, Louis XIV, Richard the Lionheart, the Byzantine Empire, the Teutonic Knights, the formation of the Netherlands, Swiss independence, the rise of the Italian city-states, the Reconquista, Novgorod and the Kievan Rus, Edward Longshanks, castles and seiges, Saladin, the feudal system, the Great Schism, Charlemagne, the caliphates, the Black Death, the Ottoman's, gunpowder, even Columbus' vogage, are "nothing really HAPPENED"? and that lot is just what I can think of off the top of my head.

[CaptCommy]

The Dark Ages came before the Middle Ages.

So, you're telling me that the Hundred Years War, the Holy Roman Empire, Barbarosa, Genghis Khan, The Crusades, Louis XIV, Richard the Lionheart, the Byzantine Empire, the Teutonic Knights, the formation of the Netherlands, Swiss independence, the rise of the Italian city-states, the Reconquista, Novgorod and the Kievan Rus, Edward Longshanks, castles and seiges, Saladin, the feudal system, the Great Schism, Charlemagne, the caliphates, the Black Death, the Ottoman's, gunpowder, even Columbus' vogage, are "nothing really HAPPENED"? and that lot is just what I can think of off the top of my head.

Okay, so nothing really happening may have been a bad choice of words. Maybe nothing interesting? I dunno, I mean, I understand how it makes a fun game, but as far as my historical knowledge is concerned, I could care less. Although, maybe it's because I don't care that I don't know what I'm missing.

[DasHuhn]

Okay, so nothing really happening may have been a bad choice of words. Maybe nothing interesting? I dunno, I mean, I understand how it makes a fun game, but as far as my historical knowledge is concerned, I could care less. Although, maybe it's because I don't care that I don't know what I'm missing.

A significant portion of the western world was created between 1200-1600; or 'the middle ages'. I find it fascinating.

[marty]

A significant portion of the western world was created between 1200-1600; or 'the middle ages'. I find it fascinating.

Don't forget 500-1200!

Where the fuck did the Slavs come from? How did they cut off the Magyars and Romanians?

If there were so many petty kingdoms in the British Isles, how many were in Europe. How many of them fought each other? How many of them were under "Kings" that we recognize but may not have had any power over their realm?

How many times was Constantinople surrounded by the Turks? :p

There's so many questions to ask.

I think CaptCommy is just a Weeaboo :ninja:

[Modest Genius]

Don't forget 500-1200!anything prior to the coronation of Charlemagne (in what, 77-something?) was Dark Ages, not Middle Ages
A significant portion of the western world was created between 1200-1600; or 'the middle ages'. I find it fascinating.Similarly, anything after the fall of the Byzantines in 1453 / the end of the War of the Roses in 1485 / Columbus' vogage in 1492 is Renaissance, not Middle Ages

[marty]

anything prior to the coronation of Charlemagne (in what, 77-something?) was Dark Ages
Yeah, I know -- but CaptCommy talked about how he didn't find the Dark Ages interesting, as well as the middle ages

[FiftyCalibre]

The time of Jesus :)

Serious.