The World's Most Important Battles

[Chris 62]

Sorry doc...

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
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.

Opinions on this still vary, but there wern't millions of Yanks in the spring of 1918 ready to fill gaps in the lines, this was done mostly by British forces.
A breakthrough could have crippled France and forced it out of the war, it's postion was still precarious after the disaster of Chemenne des Dames in 1917.

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

One of the major falicies of history.
Germany was far from Beaten, had the Germans won at Provkrovka, the Soviets would have had no mobile reserve for their fall offensive, and the Germans would have stabilized their front.
Many people fail to realize how close WWII was, simply because the allies won.
Kursk convinces Hitler's allies they can't win, and this is a political disaster for Hitler.

[Ecthy]

What about Manzikert 1071 or Mohacs 1526?

[orange]

the former has been mentioned, Andy. Try to keep up

[TheStinger]

The Battle of the Atlantic.

Without victory the Allies would not have been able to invade europe or keep the ruskies supplied.

[DinoDoc]

As long as we are talking about Roman history, could someone answer this question for me.

After the defeat at Teutoburg Forest, why didn't the Romans eliminate Arminius through assassination-something by no means unacceptable to Roman morality-instead of going for a typically brutal response to his rebellion?

[Tolls]

"A breakthrough could have crippled France and forced it out of the war, it's postion was still precarious after the disaster of Chemenne des Dames in 1917. "

A breakthrough really never looked likely. One of the big problems with large scale pre-mechanised warfare. They simply ran out of steam (as in 1914)...getting supply of any sort up to the guys at the front proved almost impossible in an offensive situation, never mind that the troops were a bit miffed to find out how well supplied the Brit forces were. They had to completely break the British army at the start (which was almost accomplished), and for the allies to not have enough in reserve to plug the hole (which wasn't the case).

I never quite understood why he didn't hit the French first, rather than attempt to knock the British out (whose morale was not as shaky)? Do you know any reasons behind the choice? Was it a purely geographical thing?

[C0ckney]

Nancy 1477, the two parts of greater Burgundy united, no Spanish/Austrian Netherlands, a powerful Duchy on the borders of France..

I think that had the Mongols won at Ayn Jalut and conquered Egypt and Arabia it wouldn't have meant the end of Islam, there were still Kingdoms in Spain and the Margreb. Also the Mongols would have become Islamised and absorbed by those they conquered, like they did in Persia.

People have mentioned Manzikert but no one the capture in 1204 on Constantinople by the crusaders, while Manzikert damaged the empire, the events of 1204 destroyed any hope of recovery.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
As long as we are talking about Roman history, could someone answer this question for me.

After the defeat at Teutoburg Forest, why didn't the Romans eliminate Arminius through assassination-something by no means unacceptable to Roman morality-instead of going for a typically brutal response to his rebellion?

His betrayal led to the loss of an Imperail Eagle, taken as a war prize, an unacceptable politcal symbol, and a bad example for others who might follow it.

Rome had no choice but to launch Indastivio, the "campaign of the Eagles", lest other emulate Arminius in other parts of the empire.

Tolls:
It seemed Lundendorf was convinced that the only way to win in the west was to defeat the British, and as Byng and his 5th corps found out, the German army just might have.

A breakthrough came VERY close, it was Lundendorf's other major error not to launch a follow up at the same location, but to try another part of the line.
Britain's morale wasn't rock solid either (In britain's rear areas several mutinees had occuried, and several ringleaders executed), all of Europe was tired of the war, but if Germany had broken the morale of Britain or France, the outcome of 1918 may have been different, and Germany may have been in a better postion to bargin for peace then what actually happened.
They might have kept areas sized in the treaty of Brest-Litvosk, and adversly affected the Russian revolution.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Chris 62
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.

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.

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.

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.

Democracy in Athens lasted a mere 40 years, during the age of Pericles, who was not a contemporary of this time. The rest of Greece was certainly familiar with tyrannical rule. Furthermore, many people believe that Persian Zorasterism was the ultimate inspiration for Judaism and its related religions. I don't think you can convincingly argue that Judeo-Christianity was an "eastern influence".
Central Gaul was united under Vercingtrix during Caesar's time. Gallic culture was more advanced than Germanic culture at this time. Even in the first century B.C. Rome was so hard pressed to find settlers for its expanded border regions that it resorted to turning entire legions into settlers. These legions became the "Limini". The soldiers of these formations were given land grants provided that their families continued to produce legionnaires for the empire. The formations were limited to service in the province they setled in.
Like the Ptolomies the Selucids eventually went completely native
The major Crusades were over before the Mongols appeared.
The Khanate of the Golden Horde were known to be fiercely religious Muslims. The Mameluks were known for their decadence.

[Dr Strangelove]

Re: Sorry doc...

Originally posted by Chris 62
Opinions on this still vary, but there wern't millions of Yanks in the spring of 1918 ready to fill gaps in the lines, this was done mostly by British forces.
A breakthrough could have crippled France and forced it out of the war, it's postion was still precarious after the disaster of Chemenne des Dames in 1917.

One of the major falicies of history.
Germany was far from Beaten, had the Germans won at Provkrovka, the Soviets would have had no mobile reserve for their fall offensive, and the Germans would have stabilized their front.
Many people fail to realize how close WWII was, simply because the allies won.
Kursk convinces Hitler's allies they can't win, and this is a political disaster for Hitler.

By the Spring of 1918 there were already 1 million American troops in France. They were considered to be inadequately trained, but if needed they would certainly have been thrown into the line.
Germany was more pressed to find reserves than the Soviet Union in 1943. A victory for Germany would have meant pushing back the Soviets a small distance, but it still would have bled irreplaceable troops from the axis lines. The progress of the war in the east might have been stalled for the allies somewhat. Perhaps Patton would have met the Russian in Slovakia instead of Bohemia, but the end would have been the same. There would have been no postwar hassle over reuniting Austria, because it would have been occupied by the western powers, and maybe Czechoslovakia would have been divided, but Germany would certainly been divided.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Democracy in Athens lasted a mere 40 years, during the age of Pericles, who was not a contemporary of this time. The rest of Greece was certainly familiar with tyrannical rule. Furthermore, many people believe that Persian Zorasterism was the ultimate inspiration for Judaism and its related religions. I don't think you can convincingly argue that Judeo-Christianity was an "eastern influence".

I don't see how that is at odds with what I said.

Central Gaul was united under Vercingtrix during Caesar's time.

Ah, this is a common mistake, appling 21st century value systems to ancient cultures.
The only alliance was anti-Roman, and Vercengetrix was only a war leader, not a suprmeme leader, IE, he could call tribes for help, but could not make strtegic decisions.

Gallic culture was more advanced than Germanic culture at this time. Even in the first century B.C. Rome was so hard pressed to find settlers for its expanded border regions that it resorted to turning entire legions into settlers. These legions became the "Limini". The soldiers of these formations were given land grants provided that their families continued to produce legionnaires for the empire. The formations were limited to service in the province they setled in.

Your a bit off here, limitanei are not legionaires, in fact, Roman legionaires were forbidden to have wives into at least Aurilius' time, they were not permanent settlers, as you suggest.
Your thinking of the landless peasants and barbarians who had entered Rome to settle on land in exchange for imperial service, THEY were given such grants and became the limitanei, which is the equivilent of a "National Guard", but NEVER supplanted the Comitatensis (Legion) in Roman military structure.

http://myron.sjsu.edu/romeweb/ROMARMY/art7.htm

Like the Ptolomies the Selucids eventually went completely native

They resembled Greek culture far more then Persian, it is Sasnids that eridicate Greek influenece.

The major Crusades were over before the Mongols appeared.

Let's compare the timelines:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/5691/History/Timelines/crusadeline.html

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/features/97/genghis/timeline/index.html

You will notice that the Khan begins his westward attack in 1220, just before the fifth crusade, so they were far from over.

The Khanate of the Golden Horde were known to be fiercely religious Muslims. The Mameluks were known for their decadence.

Yes, the horde held the Russians to backwardness for centuries.

[Chris 62]

Re: Re: Sorry doc...

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
By the Spring of 1918 there were already 1 million American troops in France. They were considered to be inadequately trained, but if needed they would certainly have been thrown into the line.

Pershing had strict orders NOT to allow US forces to be used as piecemeal replacements, or to allow the AEF to be broken up, no matter what.

Germany was more pressed to find reserves than the Soviet Union in 1943. A victory for Germany would have meant pushing back the Soviets a small distance, but it still would have bled irreplaceable troops from the axis lines. The progress of the war in the east might have been stalled for the allies somewhat. Perhaps Patton would have met the Russian in Slovakia instead of Bohemia, but the end would have been the same. There would have been no postwar hassle over reuniting Austria, because it would have been occupied by the western powers, and maybe Czechoslovakia would have been divided, but Germany would certainly been divided.

This is hardly a hard and fast concensus, in fact, I have just recently debated this topic elsewhere, that the Soviets were FAR from invincable.
Since it's all speculation, arguing back and forth is pointless, it's all in the realm of "what if".

[MattHiggs]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I don't see how that is at odds with what I said.
Ah, this is a common mistake, appling 21st century value systems to ancient cultures.
The only alliance was anti-Roman, and Vercengetrix was only a war leader, not a suprmeme leader, IE, he could call tribes for help, but could not make strtegic decisions.Your a bit off here, limitanei are not legionaires, in fact, Roman legionaires were forbidden to have wives into at least Aurilius' time, they were not permanent settlers, as you suggest.
Your thinking of the landless peasants and barbarians who had entered Rome to settle on land in exchange for imperial service, THEY were given such grants and became the limitanei, which is the equivilent of a "National Guard", but NEVER supplanted the Comitatensis (Legion) in Roman military structure.

http://myron.sjsu.edu/romeweb/ROMARMY/art7.htm

They resembled Greek culture far more then Persian, it is Sasnids that eridicate Greek influenece.
Let's compare the timelines:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/5691/History/Timelines/crusadeline.html

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/features/97/genghis/timeline/index.html

You will notice that the Khan begins his westward attack in 1220, just before the fifth crusade, so they were far from over.
Yes, the horde held the Russians to backwardness for centuries.

You should edit that post to CBeast!

[Az]

many people believe that Persian Zorasterism was the ultimate inspiration for Judaism

some even say it was the other way around. seriously, The persian belief system can be described as monotheistic.

[Az]

Roman legionaires were forbidden to have wives

you mean the emprial ones, right ? because the Republican were conscripts, IIRC.