The World's Most Important Battles

[orange]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
My dismissal of Hastings may be ignorant, but I'd like to point out that thinking it may have been Charlemagne who fought the Moors at Tours while it was his grandfather Charles Martel at Poitiers is ignorant too.

That's unfair. He admitted he wasn't sure who it was. We're not all history scholars. Not only that, but he wasn't part of this exchange. In very poor taste

[orange]

furthermore, Poitiers fell to the Moors before the battle...which is why it is sometimes referred to as the battle of Tours (as it was the battle that saved Tours, the next city in the line of Moorish destruction)

[Ramo]

Salamis 480 BC
Zama 202 BC
Teutoberger Wald 9 AD
Adrianople 378
Badr 624
Tours 732
Talas River 751
Hastings 1066
Ayn Jalut 1259
Tenochtitlan 1521
Spanish Armada 1588
Vienna 1683
Saratoga 1777
Waterloo 1815
Stalingrad 1942
Midway 1942

Those are all good choices. However, I'd argue that the first Turkish siege of Vienna in the early 16th century, was far more important than the second. The Ottoman empire was already in decline at the time. Any German conquests couldn't possibly be held.

I'd also include Antietem, where the Confederates almost secured British and French support, which probably would've insured their independence.

Also, along with Salamis, Marathon was a damn important battle for the Greeks.

what about Manzikert, in 1071?

Definitely. Anatolia was the heart of the East Roman Empire in terms of both wealth and manpower, and provided a bulwark against the Turks (mountain passes and whatnot). After Manzikert, the Turks were able to raid Roman cities at will.

[Berzerker]

Kursk and Gettysburg, a victory for either invader could have won those wars dramatically changing modern history.

Imran -

I also have to make a case for the Battle of Tannenburg, 1915.

Yup, another crucial battle leading to the Bolsheviks.

What about minor engagements with the greatest impact? After WW1 started, a German cruiser fled the Brits seeking refuge from the Turks. The result was the forced entry of Turkey into WW1 on the side of the Germans and the end of the Turkish empire.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kursk and Gettysburg, a victory for either invader could have won those wars dramatically changing modern history.

If the Germans had won at Kursk would it have made a major difference to the outcome of the war?

[notyoueither]

All the big one's are important. Although, I'm not sure Kursk AND Stalingrad should be on the list.

In skimming I have not noticed Port Arthur in 05 (?). The first defeat of a European power (Russia) by an organized Asian army (Japan) had great significance for the future of colonialism and the Pacific at large, in many books.

[Chris 62]

This thread reminds me of my very first poly thread, almost two years ago!

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=726

I listed the 7 battles I considered most significant:

Salamis 480 BC: Themistocles' trick ends Xerxes' dream of world conquest.
Gaugamela 331 BC: Alexander's greatest victory gives him a world empire, and leaves Darius' and Persia's dreams of empire forever dead.
Zama 202 BC: Scipio Africanus shatters the army of Hannibal, and teaches Rome the lesson of conquest.
Ain Jalut 1260 AD: One that most people don't know about. Baybars and his Mamluks become the only power to defeat a mongol army, putting a stop to their westward expansion forever.
Trafalgar 1805 AD: Nelson's victory over the Franc-spanish fleet of Villeneuve ends any hope of Napoleon ever defeating Britian, and thus of ever dominating the world.
The Kaiser's battle 1918 AD: Imperial Germany comes withen a wisker of breaking the allies, and thus winning the first world war.
Kursk 1943 AD: Hitler's last great offensive in Russia ends in disaster as Stalin knows when and were the Nazis will strike.

Man, seems like a million years ago since I posted that!

Whatever happened to EST?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Chris 62
The Kaiser's battle 1918 AD: Imperial Germany comes withen a wisker of breaking the allies, and thus winning the first world war.

That's a good one. Most people assume the war was over once the Amis entered. Not so. In fact, the last push by the Germans nearly ruined the show. Except I've heard it called something else...

Then that was followed by the 'hundred days'. After the Germans were spent, the Americans, Canadians (and Anzacs ?) kicked some German butt and convinced them to say good night. The British (mostly) and French (entirely) having been spent by that point.

/Edited for clarity.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That's a good one. Most people assume the war was over once the Amis entered. Not so. In fact, the last push by the Germans nearly ruined the show. Except I've heard it called something else...

I've seen it generally referred to as the Ludendorff Offensive or the German Spring Offensive.

[Dr Strangelove]

Just to introduce a little controversy here, let me pop a few ballons:

Salamis- the Persian empire fell apart within a generation of this battle, so even if the Persians had won history would have been little changed.

Teutonburg Wald- even if Rome had won, holding Germany would have been like holding water in the palm of your hand, so the battle really didn't matter.

Gaugamela- Alexander's empire was so short lived, I wonder if his campaign really mattered in the long run. One effect of his campaign was the introduction of Greek civilization in Israel and Judea, but as Greek influence was expanding anyway this area would have come under Greek influence anyway.

Ayn Jalut- was a temporary setback for the Mongols. What ultimately turned the Mongols back from the western world was Genghis Kahn's death and the resulting internal power struggle.

[Chris 62]

Well doc, to devil advocate back at ya, if Greeks lose Salamis, the entire west may have been based on persian culture rather then Greek.

If the Romans had won in the forrests of Germany, they may have settled it, same as Gaul, and not have fallen in the west.

If Alexander lost, there would have been no Hellinic culture in the east, no dynasties able to stand up to Rome, and they may have fallen to Rome competly.

The last is the easiest, as Chengis died in 1227, 33 years before Ayn Jalut.
This battle convinced the Mongols to look elsewere, had they won, they may have overun the holy land, and the Islamic faith may have been only a memory.

Such is always the way with all "what-ifs".

[Dr Strangelove]

At this time Persian culture was pretty much western culture anyway, besides, like I said, their empire was destined to crumble within a few years anyway.

At the time of Teutonberg Wald I don't think that Rome had the spare population left to settle Germany to a significant extent. After all, they invaded Germany in order to pacify it, not settle it. Oddly, it never occurred to the Romans that the fact that Roman merchants were continually invading Germany in order to procure slaves might have been a major cause of the unrest along the border. Unlike Gaul, Germany wasn't politically unified into a few kingdoms, but instead was diided into numerous small tribes. If the Romans had managed to subdue one or two tribes there would have still been others ready to harass Rome's soldiers and settlers.

Which eastern dynasties stood up to Rome? Certainly not Egypt! Persia limited Rome's eastern expansion, but by the time the Greek dynasties were long gone.

IIRC the western branches of the Mongol empire converted to Islam.

[Ramo]

was a temporary setback for the Mongols. What ultimately turned the Mongols back from the western world was Genghis Kahn's death and the resulting internal power struggle.

I believe you're referring to Ogadai Khan's death (in 1242, 15 years after the battle). I think it's reasonable to assume that the Mongols could've captured Arabia and Egypt if they beat the Mamluks at Ayn Jalut.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ramo


I believe you're referring to Ogadai Khan's death (in 1242, 15 years after the battle). I think it's reasonable to assume that the Mongols could've captured Arabia and Egypt if they beat the Mamluks at Ayn Julut.

But people were always capturing these places, so what's the diff?

A few more balloon poppers:

Kaiser's Battle- the objective of the German army at that time was to race past the Somme, reach the Seine, splitting the allied line, thereby isolating part of the allied army and forcing it to surrender. With massive numbers of American replacements arriving ( there were already 1 million training in France ) this was not a realistic expectation. If the Germans had reached their objectives American replacements would have been there to seal the gap. The German defeat later in the year would have simply been all that more spectacular.

Kursk- this battle was moot. The Soviet Union wasn't going to surrender, but Germany no longer had a chance to win.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
At this time Persian culture was pretty much western culture anyway, besides, like I said, their empire was destined to crumble within a few years anyway.

Actually, they were quite different, Persian culture was authority driven in a totalitarian fashion, Greek society, especailly Athenian, was far more liberal.
And a major factor in their fall was those pesky Greeks sending money and mercenaries to Persia.

At the time of Teutonberg Wald I don't think that Rome had the spare population left to settle Germany to a significant extent. After all, they invaded Germany in order to pacify it, not settle it. Oddly, it never occurred to the Romans that the fact that Roman merchants were continually invading Germany in order to procure slaves might have been a major cause of the unrest along the border. Unlike Gaul, Germany wasn't politically unified into a few kingdoms, but instead was diided into numerous small tribes. If the Romans had managed to subdue one or two tribes there would have still been others ready to harass Rome's soldiers and settlers.

Hmm, a don't have Ceasar's commentaries handy, but as I recall, Gaul was divided into at least 60 distinct and seperate tribes when Caesar first cross Ciscalpine Gaul with his army.
All Roman provinces were invaded at first to pacify them, this was a standard Roman procedure, Germania was no different.

Which eastern dynasties stood up to Rome? Certainly not Egypt! Persia limited Rome's eastern expansion, but by the time the Greek dynasties were long gone.

Not so, the Selucids (Persians) were direct decendents of one of Alexander's generals, and they bedeviled first the Republic and then the empire for centuries before being defeated by the Sassinids.

IIRC the western branches of the Mongol empire converted to Islam.

Many eastern parts also, but under a mongol Khan, you would not see Mullahs having undo influence.

Also, no crusader army could stand against a Mongol one (an example would be Hungary), so the Crusades would have been prfetty much over.