Gallipoli in Heroes of Battle

[green slime]

But Gallipoli was a slaughter. Churchill just wanted a slice of the action before the war ended, so he sent the ANZACs on a suicide mission. He kindly let the Turks know he was coming by bombarding their bombardment-proofed position days beforehand, then sent the inexperienced colonial boys up the beach to die.

It wasn't a glorious battle.

It was a slaughter, and no it wasn't a glorious battle. It was slightly more complex than you have otherwise described. A great many English soldiers died in Gallipoli as well. About 480,000 Allied troops took part in the Gallipoli campaign. The British had 205,000 casualties (43,000 killed). There were more than 33,600 ANZAC losses (over one-third killed) and 47,000 French casualties (5,000 killed). Turkish casualties are estimated at 250,000 (65,000 killed).

 

[Kesh]

Y'know, this whole debate has just gone down the toilet when you get two posts that state, directly: "You're wrong!" "No, you are!"

 

[Drowbane]

Not many ANZACs working at WOTC, mate.

They aren't trying to slight ANZAC sacrifice at Gallipoli, just trying to point out that some battles in some wars are better known than others.

Gallipoli? Never heard of it.

Well, know I have. Still doesn't seem like something to get upset about. (That is, that some yahoo game designer is perhaps ignorant as to what foreigners consider a major battle)

 

[Lorehead]

It is only your distance to the historical events in question, which allow you to lump all the battles on the western front during WWI together, and state that as whole, they are more recognizable than a certain specific single event.

This strikes me as unfair. None of the people who have posted here did any such thing. Even the original passage, which you yourself quoted, spoke of "the Gallipoli campaign," which lasted eight months, and called it "a significant battle that greatly influenced the eventual outcome of the war."

Your own source concludes, "The campaign had no significant effect on the outcome of the war. This could only be resolved where the main enemies confronted each other-on the Western Front." It's one thing to point out that Australians and New Zealanders still remember Gallipoli, but I hope you aren't telling me that those same people have never heard of the Western Front. If they have, the latter is more famous.

 

[Zapak Vim]

I'm a New Zealander, but Im not upset about it at all
outside of Australia and NZ the battle of gallipoli is just not that well known. leaving out the patriotism you have to admit that it was a military disaster that had no real affect on the war. Some British generals sent thousands of ANZAC soldier there, they got stuck on a beach under cliffs held by the enemy at the time, and they got slaughtered. Yes it had a huge efect in NZ because of the massive casualties, but it was not a particularly glorious or pivotal part of the war. Yes I am sad about all the NZers, aussies and turks that died, but looking back on it now, you have to admit it was all kind of pointless . . .

 

[cthulhu_duck]

Galliopli - Is extremely important to ANZACs, but outside the antipodes it's nowhere close to D-Day

It's also important to Turkey - since Ataturk established his reputation fighting on the Turkish side of the campaign.

I wouldn't be surprised to find an American RPG author wouldn't know of the significance of the Gallipoli campaign to Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, or even the British (since Churchill lost the Admiralty position). It's simply an artifact of their education system placing importance on their history, cv the history of others. Poor research perhaps, but we don't know what research they did, or what their sources were.

 

[green slime]

This strikes me as unfair. None of the people who have posted here did any such thing. Even the original passage, which you yourself quoted, spoke of "the Gallipoli campaign," which lasted eight months, and called it "a significant battle that greatly influenced the eventual outcome of the war."

Your own source concludes, "The campaign had no significant effect on the outcome of the war. This could only be resolved where the main enemies confronted each other-on the Western Front." It's one thing to point out that Australians and New Zealanders still remember Gallipoli, but I hope you aren't telling me that those same people have never heard of the Western Front. If they have, the latter is more famous.

Please, the question is not whether the campaign was a significant success or not. The question is rather in the context of "recognition points" whether the battle was a recognizeable event for other soldiers elsewhere and the people of the home front at the time that it occured and near history thereafter. Irregardless of the success or failure of the event.

 

[Tonguez]

Well let's take a look at the examples:

Gettysburg
Custer's Last Stand
Western Front of WWI
Normandy Invasion

Gettysburg - never heard of it

Okay I've heard of the Gettysburg Address but wouldn't consider it personally significant. Little Big Horn only gained fame becuase of too many cowboy movies

Really the ONLY battle mention that deserves the Recognition is Normandy (and like GrumpyOldMan might include the Battle of Hastings and Waterloo in the list)

However I do know about Gallipolli and as a south seas native think it fairly significant

 

[Jakar]

I am an Australian and really do not care if people did not know about it. It is important to us and that is the big thing for me.

That and my grandfather getting shot in the bum by a snipper while going for a nude swim on his birthday. First bath he had had in months and he got shot in the arse.

 

[Wilphe]

The author should have kept his examples to those of the American Civil War, rather than divulge his ignorance of what other people regard as important in events that have occured beyond the borders of the US.

Except that then we'd have had people complaining that only using Civil War battles makes the examples meaningless to anyone who isn't an american.
I can't see that being an improvement

Gallipoli was in World War I.

Yes, but it wasn't on the Western Front. I was responding to the comment about lumping all the battles of the Western Front together (Marne, Somme, Ypres, 3rd Ypres, Loos, Champagne, Verdun, et al)